Interesting idea. However, I can't accept a good deal of this simply b/c you state that "Evolution by definition implies a destination." and then so forth. Yes, the dictionary will tell you that evolution involves point A and point B, with some way to get from one to the other. This is a very dangerous slope, though, when considering the theory of evolution and Darwin's natural selection. Far too many Creationists or ID proponents are comfortable with evolution only on the basis of a very wrong interpretation of this simple and elegant theory.
Evolution has no purpose. It doesn't strive to improve anything. There was no plan set in motion many millenia ago that chose evolution to be its driving principle with a set goal in mind. This kind of belief mistakingly melds two opposing belief systems: scientific testability (the potential to falsify a belief through testing) and faith (the infalibility of a belief; "it is true b/c I say so"). Such systems only accept evolution with the idea that the purpose of evolution is to create humans. This not merely an elementary understanding of evolution--it is simply wrong. It is impossible to test that evolution has a purpose; yet it is quite possible to infer through fossil records and in-lab experimentation that evolution is not deliberate; that is, evolution doesn't strive to create the better beast.
This is not to say that there is no place for faith within this world. Religion, Mysticism, Voodoo, whatever you choose to believe in are certainly valid. The conflict comes when fundamentally opposed belief structures are mixed in an attempt to compromise. This is an argument put forth by Gould, and I think it is quite accurate to the current zeitgeist. A perfect, yet frightening example of our nation returning to the dark ages could be seen in the social Terrorism at the hands of the Dover school board last year. (While the 130 page decision by the judge will act as a stalwart defense against anti-science education in public schools; it's little consolation for the children of Dover whose roundly-rejected members of that board sunk their system into years of debt with that preposterous trial)
I'm also curious about these "electrical fields" and "vibrations" inherent within species. My last experience with this was that most of this was quakery on the level of phrenology...Is there any peer-reviewed research within a credible scientific journal, with actual data, to back this up? I'm no phycisist (Biologist/Geneticist), so electrical fields are not my speciality.
Why don't schools offer a separate course called "spirituality?" This, I think, would be a perfect solution for those kids who want to develop their own belief system (I really don't think it is up to the parents. Besides, forcing anything on a child is widely supported to result in the least desired outcome. Too much enforcement-- positive or negative.) Forcing creationism or ID into the Science class undermines the tenets of science, creates students who not only have a very confused understanding of how Science operates, and perhaps more importantly, creates far less-advantaged individuals when it comes to the job world...esp. outside of the US as the rest of the world views these semantics as the utterings of troglodytes.