That's a reasonably good definition.
The reason I said w/ evolution, there is no sin is as follows: it denies an entry point for sin. Sin's entry point into the Human world is via Adam. Evolution makes a claim about the origin of "Adam", which contradicts what the Bible says about his origin. Without Adam, you have no sin. You may of course have lawlessness. But not sinfulness.
I don't see how your logic follows. Science tells us humanity did not always exist. Thus, there had to be a first man. That was Adam. This is true whether or not evolution is true. If there was an Adam, God could have endowed him with a soul and revealed Himself to him. Adam could have rebelled against God and sinned. I don't see how evolution rules any of this out. Science can't address the question of a soul, divine revelation, or morality.
The only theological difference between a creationist and and a theistic evolutionist, as far as I can see, is that the theistic evolutionist believes God used evolution as his tool to make Adam's body.
I honestly don't see why this distinction has any theolgoical importance. Why does the specific manner in which God shaped man matter? Why do you care whether God gradually shaped man, using various intermediate forms, before reaching the final product of Adam? Theologically, all that matters is that the end product is a rational being with free will capable of knowing and loving his Creator (or rejecting him). Why do you find that the process of shaping man matters?
"The only theological difference between a creationist and and a theistic evolutionist, as far as I can see, is that the theistic evolutionist believes God used evolution as his tool to make Adam's body."
If Adam had sprung out of the earth via a process that unwinds over time, then the Eve part of the story has serious, serious problems, doesn't it? And rationally, doesn't it make the eve part fully deniable, regarding her origin? I'll answer your other questions after your response...