Definitely an interesting article. I especially like how it addresses the issues of how a person's worldview can influence their interpretation of evidence, and vice versa, and there being more than just two options or lenses to view these issues from (i.e., creationism and strict materialism). That said, I agree with the majority of daverupa's criticisms.
For example, I agree that evolution has nothing to do with cosmogenesis or biogenesis, and definitely shouldn't be conflated with either, in my opinion. Your use of the word 'evolution' throughout the article is extremely loose, and you often bounce from one definition to another; whereas science (particularly evolutionary biology) is generally very strict about applying it to changes in inherited traits of species over time and nothing else.
Moreover, I think the section on rebirth is a weak link overall. While I disagree that the 'after death' issues is wholly unrelated to the theory of evolution, as immaterial rebirth mechanisms could theoretically influence the evolutionary process in some way, you don't really discuss this in any detail, and the evidence for rebirth — the presence of desire as a motivating force in the present — is as convincing an argument as the 'cyclical argument' used by Socrates in Plato's dialogue, Phaedo
. It's logically sound; but that in and of itself doesn't make it true, and you, like Plato, present absolutely zero empirical evidence to back it up.
Furthermore, the suggestion that greed, hatred, and delusion will condition rebirth if not eradicated suffers from the same problems. For one, it rests on a number of unaddressed assumptions, the main one being these mental components aren't strictly contingent upon the brain. Science has done a lot of research into the connection between the mind and the brain; whereas Buddhism mostly provides theoretical and internally consistent explanations for the rebirth process with little to no supporting evidence that essentially have the same footing as creationist ones in that they're ultimately untestable.
Objectively speaking, the non-material forces posited in Buddhism are as ethereal, and as yet unprovable, as the creationist's God; and until they can be, I don't see why they should have any place in a biology or physics class, which is the real question, i.e., Why should these kinds of arguments or explanations have any relevance in the classroom where hard science is being taught? A philosophy course, certainly. But a biology or physics class? Not so much, in my opinion; at least not from the level of argumentation you've provided.
That doesn't mean I think you're on the wrong track, however, by suggesting that the possible existence of non-material forces should be taken seriously, or for advocating more debate and open-mindedness when it comes to exploring these issues and presenting them in the classroom. But I do think you need to flesh out your arguments more to better make your case, as well as offer more actual 'evidence' when you invoke that word.
All in all, my criticisms aren't meant to attack your article, but to help make it (or future ones) stronger.