What I was really trying to say is that, at many levels, the fact of evolution does mean that certain parts of the Bible can't be read in the way they used to be read.  Since we now have to understand the Adam & Eve story as non-historical, if we now say that it is a story, albeit one with a depth of meaning, it isn't the only part of scripture that is affected that change of understanding. It's reasonably easy to argue that the Adam and Eve story should be read in a sort of allegorical way, but it's not really possible to say that Paul's theorising about Christ being a second Adam, is a story with a meaning.  It reads like an attempt by Paul at defining a mechanism, some rules which govern his notion of original sin and how humanity has got where it has.

Creationists, from their point of view, are right to fear belief in evolution, because it undermines the idea that the writers of scripture, especially the New Testament, have written stuff which is inerrant or even substantially correct. Quite clearly Paul's argument that because one man brought sin into the world another man could single-handedly take it out, is not based on facts - one man didn't bring sin into the world.  If Paul could get something like this wrong, and we are now able to correct him with our better knowledge of how things work, then where else might our better understanding of how things work trump what we have traditionally seen as Paul's solid reasoning?  If we are to be consistent in the way we treat scripture then can we now call Paul into question (or at least what we have traditionally understood Paul to be saying) and say that he may be simply wrong on other issues?