No, most of accepted scriptural exegis for about the last 2000 years.
Biblical interpretation is not ENTIRELY subjective. There are certain elements that have to be universally accepted as literal (Jesus Christ was real and the son of God) or you no longer have Christianity.
One of those, accepted by ALL Christian traditions for the past 2000 years is that sin entered the world through the fall of the man Adam and thus the restoration from sin required the sacrifice of Christ.
Christians who subscribe to Darwinism must turn their back on 2000 years of scholarly interpretation and declare that Adam is actually a metaphorical construct and never existed as a real individual, and that Paul is comparing a metaphorical construct, Adam with a real individual, Christ, and that a metaphorical construct to represent a prior condition that never existed (a sinless garden of eden with immortal occupants) requires the real sacrifice of an actual diety (Christ, the son of God) to eventually restore mankind to a metaphorical condition that never truly existed.
The contradictions require an impressive exercise in pretzel logic to overcome.
Yes, however I don't see how believing in the evolution of the human body negates this. I'm not denying the universal element you described. I do not believe that Adam is a "metaphorical construct" totally separate from reality. I simply don't believe it's important to know exactly how his body was formed to understand and accept the message of salvation.
I don't know if you're a Catholic or not, and it doesn't really matter for this conversation, but one perfectly valid way (in my opinion) of viewing our nature is as Pope Pius XII stated regarding evolution:
"...the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).
So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. source
So what's this saying? Basically it's saying that it's the soul of man ultimately responsible for our nature. Our soul is that which defines us, not merely our bodies (although, being created by God, the body is a part of us, but it's not what defines us ultimately).
Thus, our bodies very well could have developed through the process we call "evolution" today, (even though this is, I believe, of course a process guided by God, but that doesn't really change whether or not evolution as a process is real), but our soul has never and is never "evolved"; the soul is created.
So did Adam, the actual person live? I believe so yes. But how did Adam's body come into being? Does that really matter? That's the question. I submit it doesn't really matter what you believe. It doesn't really matter if you believe that Adam's body evolved from a common ancestor with apes, or if you believe that his body was literally formed from the dust of the earth. It doesn't really matter because our salvation is not linked to our body, but rather what we do with our soul.
Now again, you may disagree with this, and that's fine. I'm saying it's perfectly fine to believe that Adam was literally created from dust. I don't see why other Christians though seem to insist upon forcing such a literal interpretation on others? (and that seems to be the reason these crevo threads keep popping up, because if we just had a "live and let live" philosophy on this issue, then we wouldn't have the crevo threads, much less the recent brouhaha in Kansas, or Pennsylvannia)
So, if you still remain unconvinced, if you still believe there should be only a strict interpretation of Genesis, then that returns us to the (my) original point, which is, "Why should we take Genesis literally? Why is your [or any creationist's/IDer's] opinion of Scripture any more superior to mine, or to Pope Pius XII'ths or, ...........etc?"