I don't believe that's true.
Yes there are many denominations that support old earth and even progressive creationism (even conservative ones).
There are several interpretations that can allow for that. The gap theory before the reforming of earth and long day ages can both allow for that.
But the OP specifically included theistic evolution and therein lies the difference between conservative views on these things and liberal views.
Evil entered God's good creation through the sin of the one man Adam. It will be eradicated through the obedience of the one man Jesus Christ.
No first Adam = no second Adam. No fall of man = no redemption of man.
Death, pain and suffering entered the world through sin. Death, pain and suffering are the basic building blocks of evolution.
Simply adding the word "theistic" to the theory of evolution does not change that fact. In fact it makes God the author of death, pain and suffering - i.e. sin and evil.
There is a world of difference between a Christian accommodating what the scientists tell us about age in nature and accommodating evil death, pain and suffering in the method of creating man in His own image.
A Christian may well call himself conservative on paper. But when it comes to so called "theistic" evolution the truth comes out IMO.
That person is a liberal in his theology - and that's putting it charitably.
I think you have a very uneducated view of what evolution is or what its basis is.
Evolution is mostly just a fancy term for applied genetics across multiple generations.
To put it very simply, first there's a mutation to a gene or two, say simply, brown eyes or blue eyes, and blue eyed people only select for other blue eyed people for spouses and have children with them, almost the entire population will be blue eyed (there's under a 1% chance for 2 blue eyed parents to have a brown eyed child because the eye color is caused by 2 genes, a pigment gene and a gene that codes for a transport protein that moves the pigment to the iris, the genes are close together so having them split during meiosis to where a parent gets a functional pigment gene but not functional transport protein gene is very rare, having 1 parent having a functional pigment and mutated transport protein gene, and the other having a functional transport protein but mutated pigment, and each passing down those specific functional genes to make a complete set is very rare). Right there is an example of microevolution, genetic change within a species.
It's impossible to understand genetics, without understanding at the very least, microevolution.
Macroevolution is that same concept multiplied by multiple non deleterious mutations or genetic modifications, across multiple generations so that all these new traits within the species add up to a point where they're no longer able to breed with the species they originally were, forming a new species. The difference between theistic evolution and atheistic evolutionists is what is the source of these genetic modifications, and how long does it take to get from one species to another.
An atheistic evolutionist will claim that radiation causes the mutations, but almost all of those mutations are incompatible with life, radiation damages cell DNA causing errors in replication that eventually stack up and the cell dies. There would also be a lot of transitional species in the fossil record that just don't exist, and you would also need large enough populations of these new mutations for breeding and creating a subpopulation which then gets geographically separated and inbreeds to propagate the mutations to a point where the species become incompatible. That's where you see the hand of God at work because the fossil record doesn't have these long transitions, you just suddenly see different species, so the macroevolution that does take place takes place much faster and more deliberately than chance would allow. HOWEVER, with our own gene editing you CAN walk back traits. Scientists created a chicken that has a toothy snout rather than a beak, simply by doing a "knockout" of a cluster of genes within chicken DNA that pertain to facial structure. New genes were not added in, just the genes that were there were prevented from being expressed. The result, the bird didn't grow a beak, it grew a snout, with teeth, like mammals and reptiles. Whether it was ethical or not to do this was beside the point, but the result is, evidence that birds were once more reptile like. You can see more rapid change than naturalists would see as being possible, and you can see that all life is based on the same code, and related to each other.
Whether you term it as theistic evolution or progressive creationism is somewhat semantics though with theistic evolution its more along the line of the very slow changes that naturalists believe in taking place random, just not being random, being intelligently designed, while progressive creationism is more rapid but in stages, and for some people that are progressive creationists they still believe it was magic just poof there it is, rather than life grown from previous life, with modification. I believe that God modified life from other life to create new species as He desired. Random mutation on the other hand, is the manifestation of death that you're talking about. When God modifies, He does not create modifications incompatible with life, they're deliberate, with purpose, to fill a niche.
