The short answer to R. Slifkin is -- absolutely no! And I mean within the Torah hashkafa of Rav Hirsch zt"l.
The modern definition of evolution is common descent via blind, mindless, unguided, purposeless processes such as random mutation and natural selection -- the blind watchmaker thesis. Even Darwin said that he would consider his theory to be rubbish if he would need to appeal to G-d for any one stage. As Richard Dawkins sums it up with evident approval "For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all". Evolution without the blind watchmaker thesis is not evolution at all. At best (or perhaps at worse), it would be common descent with meta-natural guidance from G-d (something that the scientists R. Slifkin relies categorically reject).
The quotes in Collected Writings and in his commentary to Chumash (here) show Rav Hirsch in absolute opposition to evolution's blind watchmaker thesis. And in his later writings, Rav Hirsch also rejected common descent and the whole man-from-proto-monkey nonsense.
Question for R. Slifkin: Have you provided even one quote from all the works of Rav Hirsch zt"l that explicitly support the blind watchmaker thesis?Let me answer that one. No! R. Slifkin's blog and books deeply misrepresent Rav. Hirsch.
As Rabbi Elias points out, in the entirely hypothetical case that overwhelming evidence can be brought to bear, Rav Hirsch would accept it, provided there is clear evidence that it works and that it does not depend on random processes and natural selection, but is seen as a Divinely planned and instituted development. These conditions were not met in his time, and they are certainly not met today. (Rabbi Joseph Elias, The Nineteen Letters, Feldheim 1995, page 44).
As Rabbi Yehuda Halevi puts it:
Heaven forbid that there be anything manifest or proved which could contradict anything in the Torah (Kuzari I:67).The blind watchmaker thesis is supposed to account for eyes, wings, the mammalian brain and everything else. What utter nonsense! There is not a single shred of evidence in support of it. R. Slifkin knows this and this is why he has refused to debate Dr. Betech.
(This was originally a comment to the previous entry, but has now been slightly revised into a post.)