Kind of depends on how you define good and evil, doesn't it? Ayn Rand and Augustine, for example, would probably both agree that people are born selfish; but Rand would call that a good thing, whereas Augustine would not.
If we stick to the more conventional ethical philosophy that holds that unselfishness is good and harming others is bad, however, it's obvious that we're born with both good and bad impulses. But I think that our fundamental tendency has to be towards good, because otherwise, we would not consider it good.
Also, there is the fact of emotional healing. Many people who were raised with a lack of love, and treat others badly, find emotional healing later in life, and change their ways. It's far less common for a loving person (and I don't mean a co-dependent person, who gives out of obligation, but a genuine loving person) to suddenly turn hateful later in life.
For all that people complain about the warlike, selfish nature of the human race, things are a heck of a lot better than they were a few centuries or millenia ago. One of the main reasons is because most people--at least in the Western world--don't have to worry about having enough food to survive, or other basic necessities. What that says, to me, is that when there are adequate resources people tend towards being good.
Evil fundamentally arises out of a sense of scarcity. At the simplest level, a lack of food might lead to wars for the sake of gain. At a more abstract level, a personal sense of scarcity due to a lack of love during childhood might lead to all sorts of pathological behaviors. In all cases, however, the cause of the evil is environmental, not an internal tendency.