So I ask you to please consider the central part of the argument, which I will summarize now:
The Bible says that Our Lord redeemed all of creation on the Cross. It also says that redemption of man is made possible because He becomes a true man who is physically related to us. If he redeems not only man but all of creation, it then follows that he must be phsysically related to all of creation.
Creationism, however, denies the last point, insisting that man was specially and seperately created. On the other hand, evolution fits perfectly, since it holds that man shares common physical ancestry with all other life.
Your argumment is a post hoc fallacy. Even granting that redemption came because Christ became man like us (a point open to debate within Christianity), it does not follow (thus the post hoc fallacy) that Christ had to be related to all of creation in a similar manner in order to redeem it.
The simple explanation is that creation fell when man fell, and that creation is redeemed when man is redeemed. This makes perfect theological sense if man is the special creation for which the world was made, and which man was given dominion and lordship over.
It seems to me that the primary focus of theistic evolution is to treat the theory of evolution (and all science in general) as the ruler of absolute truth to which the Bible must be stretched to fit rather than have scripture be the ruler by which all other things are measured.
"If he redeems not only man but all of creation, it then follows that he must be phsysically related to all of creation."
The problem is that it doesn't necessarily follow at all. It redeems all of creation because all of creation was affected by the fall. Why was all of creation affected by the fall? As a curse for Adam's sin. It wasn't because the animals were related to Adam that they were cursed. It was because God cursed the ground and the animals because of Adam, and it affected all of creation.
Likewise, the restoration is the restoration of all things, which has nothing to do with whether or not there is a biological ancestry of other things to man.
For the author's argument to make sense, we would have had to have sinned when we were microbial, and that's why it affected all of creation. But in fact the reason that the curse affected creation is quite easily shown from scripture that it had nothing to do with creations biological relatedness to the rest of us, and therefore, neither does its restoration.
"All you have done is either repeat the usual AiG party line answer of no death before the fall or sniped at the paper's digressions and side notes."
I just didn't feel the need to answer an argument that didn't logically follow, and instead decided to point out the places where he totally ignores what the Bible actually says and pretends there is agreement between his point of view and the Bible.
Now that's unique. Using the bible, which is faith-based literature, to try and prove a non-historical secular point. This just goes to highlight my point that evo is every bit as much a faith-based belief system as creationism is.