Funny. England didn't fall when King Richard II fell. Poland did not fall when King Boleslaw fell. China did not Fall when the Quin dynasty, or any other dynasty for tha matter, fell. There are plenty more where that came from. You don't know your history very well, I see.
The point here is that you don't NEED theistic evolution to explain why the world fell when man fell.
You don't need it, perhaps, but it makes a lot more sense. Otherwise, you have God cursing a bunch of animals for something they didn't do. That's pretty hard to reconcile with the way we know God operates in the rest of the Bible. Perhaps no impossible, but difficult, and awkward. Evolution elinimates this difficulty.
The rude remark aside, we are discussing biblical symbolism, not historical events.
The fall is a spiritual event with a temporal consequence.
The idea of a ruler's decisions affecting the spiritual status of what he rules is a pretty clear pattern in the Old Testament.
Since theistic evolution has the animals cursed already, I fail to see your objection to a Fall moving animals from a state that theistic evolution has them in from the beginning.
I think theistic evolution has to make too many compromises to scripture. You have to make too many things symbolic that are plainer to read as literal.
Like I said before, my biggest argument with theistic evolution is that it makes the learning of man the yardstick by which the Bible must be measured.
I think the fact that no one came up with a reading of the Bible that supports theistic evolution until after Darwin's theory gained acceptance pretty much proves that men who preach theistic evolution are actually worshipping science and modifying scripture to fit their new god's teachings.