I agree with the majority of what you're saying and I think it's great you cited sources, some of the sources you used are really questionable...
"In 1999, Fox News asked “what is the more likely explanation for the origin of human life?” 15% said evolution, 50% said biblical creation and 26% said both. This poll reveals the widespread lack of knowledge of theories of origins."
That statistic is well over 10 years old, and I know for a fact it's no longer accurate today as I've seen other more recent studies that have very different results. Evolutionary science has come a long way since 1999.
Additionally, your daisy/ tulip example was a little off. What would make more sense in the context of evolution would be a very small number of daises would have some advantage over the ant, and the other daisies would die. The daisies with the advantage would continue to reproduce, and over a long span of time the daises with the advantage would survive. The tulips are unrelated to the daises' niche.
Also, the fitness of an organism is measured by how it reproduces, I think you mis-defined it.
I also feel like you left out much of the evidence for evolution... the fossil record, homologies, analogies, uniformity of DNA, etc. That's the difference between evolution and creationism- you don't have all that evidence for creationism, what would there be to teach? And there are so many religions- which creation story do you teach? You can't force kids to read religious texts they don't believe as if they're a viable option.
Also, you use the word theory as if it makes evolution questionable, when really in science, theory doesn't carry that connotation. Calling something a theory in science doesn't mean it's inaccurate or unproven.
Your article was very organized and well laid out, it read like something professional and I think you made some very good, and thought provoking points and I think you did a really good job.