There are many roads we could take to demonstrate the contrariety. I will simply go with the literal road. The text literally reads, "Dust thou." It is not what he was; it is what he is. Evolution requires mutation. Were an evolutionist to say that man had been dust (although the hypothesis never lays claim to this idea), the mutation to an higher form would make it inappropriate to still describe him in this way. I might add, that the death process, in which man returns to dust, is by means of corruption, not devolution, which is demonstrative of itself. In contrast, evolution makes the death process integral to the development.