"My other thought is that evolution doesn't have to support amorality in the way that Christians fear it will. In western cultures in which animals were simply thought of as being resources to be exploited, the proposition that humans were more closely related to animals was horrifying because this seemed to imply that humans were then also simply resources to be exploited. In other cultures in which animals were seen as conscious beings with intrinsic value (such as in Hindu and Buddhist cultures), I think that this proposition was much less shocking, because there was already a belief in the interconnection of all forms of life.
Like many other things, I think the ethical value of the theory of evolution depends on how it's used. But I do think that evolution, when viewed from certain perspectives, can promote morality.
There is one issue that isn't directly addressed here, but it is closely related with it, that is: Biologists say that population is the smallest unit that has to be considered, so there is no individual at all in evolution. This also brings up the question of Sangha, is there ever a sangha that is somehow free and independent of the smallest unit of population ? Population unit is hereditary like nationality, clan, family etc... it competes with sangha and very often takes its place, and after a while there isn't any dharma left at all, but the population unit refuses to believe this, it says that it (ie population; family, nationalty etc..) is the dharma, and so on...