They call her "Ardi" and judge her, at 4.4 million years old, to be the oldest intact skeleton of an ancestor to humans discovered yet. 
Discovered in Ethiopia, she's all the news, not least because she's different from the chimps that many scientists had thought we humans evolved from, so many millions of years ago. Ardi wasn't a knuckle-dragger, but she probably did spend lots of time in trees (the thumb-like appendage among her toes makes it likely that she could climb pretty well.) She most certainly walked upright.
Science is a paradoxically humble endeavor -- theories can never be proven to be true, but they can be proven false. Science proceeds in this manner of discovery, evaluation and reevaluation that has made it vulnerable to the charge that "those scientists don't really know what they're doing." Therefore anything goes. But not everything goes.
I suppose that some creationists, determined to understand the Bible exactly as they read it (usually in English translation) will see as vindication the way that Ardi makes scientists rethink assumptions about human evolution. But of course it's much more complicated than simply filling in the blanks of human certainty in science with a different kind of human certainty based on interpretations of biblical texts.
I am especially interested in the ways that millions of other Bible believers reconcile their faith with the acceptance of scientific theories such as that of evolution. How do you?
"She most certainly walked upright."
While this may reflect your belief, & the belief published by the authors in Science, it is quite far from "certain" due to the condition of the bones. Here's a link to a more realistic analysis of what is actually "certain" about Ardi's gait (i.e., not much).
"[T]heories can never be proven to be true, but they can be proven false."
Billions of years of time & the ape/human common-ancestor theories cannot be proven false. They each have numerous logic-rescuing devices, the same way Biblical inerrancy proponents can always explain KJV problems. Certain beliefs simply don't lend themselves to this test. Simple-to-complex evolution & abiogenesis (life from non-life) have already been falsified, yet for some strange reason (maybe you can help me understand this), some people still believe in them.
"[S]ome creationists ... will see as vindication the way that Ardi makes scientists rethink assumptions about human evolution."
The Ardi vs. Lucy issue in our "tree" is no "vindication" of creationism. The upright posture shown in illustrations of both animals is completely speculative, & therefore poses no threat whatsoever to creationism. Even if an unambiguously upright-walking animal's fossil were found, it could simply be interpreted that God created something other than humans that could walk upright. It's already obvious to creationists that God used common designs in various animals (red blood, bones, eyes, legs, intestines, etc.).
"...ways that ... Bible believers reconcile their faith with the acceptance of scientific theories such as that of evolution."
1) Prehistoric time is imaginary (not natural, observable, testable; therefore not scientific even by evolutionists' own terms).
2) Simple-to-complex evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (nature/matter tends toward disorder), which is why there are no known examples of it (just stories about it, which are equivalent to stories about Martians & Bigfoot).
3) Abiogenesis violates the law of biogenesis (life only comes from already-living things).
4) Homology doesn't prove ancestry (common features in genetic code can imply a common ancestor or a common Designer).
Saying that Evolution (the whole theory as it's preached in public schools) is scientific doesn't make it so, no matter how many people say it, or how often they say it. They mostly do so by definition, stipulating that "science" is limited to the natural; but this a misleading presupposition because logic, relationships, & information are beyond nature, yet foundational to human "knowledge" (the most accurate definition of "science").
With such a weak foundation (scientifically & logically), I'm not compelled to reconcile any aspect of my faith in God (via the Biblical record, beginning with a 7-day creation thousands, not billions, of years ago), in order to blend it with a modern myth.