Traditional Christian teaching is that death entered the world because of Adam's transgression. (Gen 2:17, Romans 5:12).
Now, you could read these passages and say that the death being spoken of was not a physical death, but a spiritual death or separation from God, and that the story of Genesis is an account of the point at which the evolving hominid reached a point where he became accountable before God for his moral conduct.
If you do this, you are basically taking the Urantian point of view, which states that life evolved until a point had been reached where humans were sufficiently developed to be "uplifted."
Christ then comes in the meridian of time to bring a second "uplift," if you will, allowing for an escape of the evolutionary bonds of death.
I suppose you could morph Christianity in this way to make it work with evolution (which is what the Urantia book does), but you have to pretty much abandon traditional Christian teachings to do it. Thus the conflict.
From what fragmentary portions I have gleaned in reading up on Jewish religious history, Genesis is has more to it than a strict and literal interpretation. Theres much esotericism involved.
Which death? Death according to Christ, as I remember my teachings, is not the physical death but the death of the soul from a lack of love for God which then translates into damnation.
This is one piece of scripture where I think there really is little or no room for debate. God, I suspect, is unconcerned with your physical well being. We are born, we live a short time, we die and we turn to dust. God's concern would have to be for our spiritual death and life everlasting.
If you do this, you are basically taking the Urantian point of view, which states that life evolved until a point had been reached where humans were sufficiently developed to be "uplifted."
Not at all, to think that God is more concerned with your cholesterol level and blood pressure than your spiritual health is something I will never be able to wrap my arms around.