Welcome Pippin! I hope you don't have any hard feelings about the initial response to your post. I won't try to be too negative about it but I just wanted to point out a very, very common misconception about TEism that you put in your essay.
The main argument for Theistic-Evolution is their interpretation of the word day. They argue that, as stated in 2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
That is not actually a main argument of TEism. The typical TE argument is a little different from that. But this line of reasoning (that a "day" may be a bit more than a day) is quite commonly found among
OEC circles - the general belief that God created in about the same order and style as stated literally in Genesis, but over very long periods of time (so that the conventional dates are correct), and generally they also believe in a local flood. According to their view, yes, "day 1" was a very long period of time, "day 2" was another very long period of time, "day 3" was another very long period of time ...
Whereas, for the TE, the days don't actually correspond to any real period of time, but instead reveal certain aspects of God's creative style and purpose. Among those are that God is orderly (check out something called "tohu-bohu" parallels - basically God creates a gap on days 1-3 and fills those gaps on days 4-6), that God is the creator and therefore is all-powerful, that all nature is created and therefore should not be worshiped. Etc.
The difference between these approaches is that the OEC seems to me to be more allegorical, whereas the TE seems to be more mythical / parabolic. Let me illustrate using the parable of the Good Samaritan.
There are three ways to interpret the parable of the Good Samaritan. The first way (which nobody does, strangely) is to assume that Jesus is telling a true story. There was actually a man who was going down the road, who was robbed, who was rescued by a Samaritan. If we'd been back in time when Jesus told the story we would've been able to get a name for the man, how much he lost, who rescued him, and how many children he had, etc. Jesus took an actual event and taught a lesson from it.
That is akin to the YEC approach to Genesis 1-11. Everything actually happened literally and historically.
The second approach was the one taken by Augustine and the medieval theologians. This was the "allegorical" view, in which every single detail in the parable represented an actual happening in the history of God's people. The "certain man" was Adam, "going down from Jerusalem to Jericho" depicted his fall, "the Samaritan" was Jesus, "oil and wine" represent the sacraments (or the work of the Holy Spirit - can't remember, off the top of my head), etc. etc.
That's akin to the OEC approach to Genesis 1-11. Nope, it wasn't exactly one day, but it was a definite period of time. All those "kinds" were created separately and didn't evolve one from another, even if God took longer than 24 hours to create them. The flood may not have been worldwide, but it certainly wiped out all life on land. Everything in Genesis 1-11 may not have been actual but it closely represents an actual period / event in history.
The third approach to the parable is to assume that Jesus made a story out of thin air. There was no man going down, no Samaritan, no robbers, zilch. None of these existed except in Jesus' head. But He told the story all the same.
That's more like what the TEs believe.
(At least, that's how I see it. Gotta run!)
I like that post hah YAY
As long as you don't call anyone a heretic you'll do just fine. 
