It isn't a potshot, in fact it's very well deserved.
Since you seem utterly incapable of grasping the point of the cartoon, I will list it for you.
The scenes where the (assumed) principal keeps coming back in the door to tell the confused teacher to go find someone else, depicts the scene in which christians want just one of the possible creationist "theories" to be taught - their own.
What about the prophet Muhammad? What about the egyptian sungod, Ra? What about the Norse creation mythologies involving the gods Thor and Odin? What about Zeus? Apollo? Shiva? What about the thirteen creator gods of the Maya?
It is utterly pointless to teach creationism from a singular point of view, yet this is what the creationist lobby in the US are trying to do.
Add to that the obvious implications a creationist mindset has for scientific capabilities and it's easy to perceive the world entering an age of retardation rather than enlighement if such ideas are allowed to take hold.

But of course, United States of America is a christian nation founded on biblical principles! :D

Well, yes. The biggest scientific breakthroughs come when big scientific discoveries are actually proven at least partly wrong, although with established scientific theories as of today incomplete is a more fitting word.
If you go back just a century or two however, the scene was quite different. The germ theory of disease for example. The "physics clash" when Einstein presented the theory of relativity which proved that Newton was slightly wrong about the universe (although, for practical purposes very much correct, at least for those people who choose to remain on this planet physically).
When these existing scientfic theories were proved wrong, mankind evolved two centuries worth in just a handful of years.
Does that mean evolution should be considered a theory that might one day be proven wrong? In light of new facts, incomplete, maybe. Perhaps we one day discover life outside our own solar system, and are hence able to extract more information about the true nature of life and it's evolution. Too often do we assume (at least on the typical discovery channel shows) that one needs water and carbon to create life, for example.
But disproved by intelligent design? Hardly likely, as intelligent design is not a valid scientific theory in it's current state. It does not hold up to the normal rigors of scientific scrutiny. The fact of evolution does.

The founding fathers were also highly secular. If we should still adhere to the aforementioned biblical principles of theirs, we should adhere to their secularity too. The current creationism debate is not very secular, as one of the chief beliefs in secularism is that religion should not be a part of politics.
But I assume you know this, and that you are just being ironic here. Because the irony is pretty clear.

Currently evolution would say that the meaning of life is to reproduce and carry on your own genes in order to better the genetic diversity of the human genome (assuming you're not interbreeding with close relations), and that there is no specific purpose to why we are here. We are simply slaves to the same natural laws that created us.

Survival, as good as any other goal, isn't it?

But the process of evolution itself doesn't know that. It's just a silly human abstraction that there need to be a goal to evolution, there isn't. It's just a force majoure of nature, and doesn't proceed in this or that way with any regard to outside influences.

Of course it doesn't know that, I might as well believe rock knows it's in it's best interest to lie there and do nothing, but indirect goal of evolution simply IS survival. And... Yes, it does proceed in this or that way with a regard to outside influences, that's the whole survival of the fittest thing, which makes it non-random.

In short, no. You are wrong.
The "indirect goal of evolution" does not exist, it's just an abstraction you've made yourself to comprehend the situation. However, it is false.

Evolution is the progression of beneficial gene mutations through the principal of survival of the fittest. It does not have any goal, it's just a side-effect of the unstability of the DNA, which might lead to beneficial or detrimental effects to the body and mind. Or that's how I've interpreted it at least.

Its more accurate to say its the name given to series of random mutations that have ended up providing an advantage of some description. Evolution itself doesn't exist except in the form of an abstract used to describe the progression

As is any word, used to describe anything abstract, so... Ok :-)

"So yes, a Scientific Theory is "fact", but only in the same sense that it was "fact" that man could never fly, "fact" that there was nothing smaller than an electron, and "fact" that the world was created by some dude who knocked up a woman way back when :p. Admittedly, Evolution is much better supported than any of those "facts", but that doesn't mean it isn't still a theory :p"
I'm reminded of this ;) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0
When it comes the person quote-mining Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker (which is often quote-mined like it has been here), maybe we should see what Richard has to say about this kind of thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKFtNuGt4rw
"I personally hold that there is a God who has created a universe that has meaning and purpose, and our lives have great meaning and purpose as well."
The meaning and purpose of the universe seems to be to create black holes. I heard someone recently put this quite succinctly. The universe is actually very poor at supporting life. It's poor at demonstrating any meaning other than destroying life. Almost every square inch of the universe is hostile to life. If there is a god, it is inept at creating a universe that is ideal for supporting life.
Let's look at what each and every god has in common: they have left absolutely no evidence of their existence (or depending on the standards of evidence we may all agree upon, the one true god has left only equal amounts of evidence for his existence as each 'fake' god, ie. Yahweh has presented as much evidence as Zeus, Allah as Krishna, etc.); they made their creation (the universe) appear as if it has no creator; they have each failed to make their existence apparent to the entire human populace; for those who it (to reduce it to the singular for this example) has made aware of its existence, it has not been able to provide them with the same ontology; and on that note, neither has it been able to impart the same coherent rules, wishes or will to everyone.
To punctuate the above on "God's plan", it's video time again (this is the old version of TBS' video, but I like its simplicity better): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnPWWbePeb8
If this god does not want us to know that it exists, or to provide us with a means to distinguish it from other gods or imagination, why would it care whether or not we believe in it?

But evolution is not abstract. It is very, very concrete.
Is it mindbogglingly complex, up to the point where the human mind has severe difficulties comprehending it? Oh yes, you bet it is. That's why we need simplifying abstractions. By all means, seeing survival of the fittest as the "goal" of evolution is a very widespread view. However, it is technically incorrect, as the process of evolution does not have and cannot possess such a thing as an overall goal.
When it comes to outside factors influencing the process of evolution, well, again the abstraction is wrong, really. It's easy to perceive such things as temperature, climate, catastrophic events (certain larger than average reptiles, and their unfortunate meeting with a rather larger than average rock traveling at a larger than average speed spring to mind) as evolutionary events that have been influenced by outside forces, and in a way they are. They certainly shifted the way evolution went, didn't they?
Well, yes. But not the way evolution fundamentally works. One needs to separate the process from the effects of the process. The genetic information held by the dinosaur family of creatures disappeared, and will forever be lost, unless it (by chance) should actually evolve again. Cue the age of mammals, the pinnacle of which is now sitting in front of a fluorescent screen debating the matter. But evolution itself was not changed.

And again, we pretty much agree in all major points, so why are we arguing about me naming things? I'm sorry, but I'm slightly offended by 'you're wrong' where I can't be wrong, simply because it's me giving a name to something that doesn't exist while I know it. I don't think it's an inaccurate simplification and can't see how could it hurt anyone or anything.
Oh, also, a little misunderstanding there: I didn't mean outside factors as in temperature and climate, even thou those influence evolution as well, I mean interaction between species. But you're right there - if we take evolution as a whole, those are not outside factors. I just understood it wrong, sorry about that :-)

It doesn't hurt anything, it's just not technically (well, very technically, perhaps) correct as it oversimplifies the situation too much. It sort of ends up being a situation where you might come into the debate the wrong way around. Evolution has no goal. It favors certain developments over others, that's true. The nature of which developments are favored at which times is ... extremely complex, I certainly don't come even remotely close to understanding it, and I suspect nobody alive today does. Hence the need for abstractions and simplifications. The most common of which is that the goal of evolution is to ensure the survival of the fittest. The word "goal" has no place in that sentence, instead think of it as survival of the fittest (under the criteria which they have survived) is the effect of evolution. The latter statement I find, is more clear and more in tone with the actual nature of things.

Yes, I know, and I said I agree several times, I said I know it and I am aware of ... Well everything you said. So, technically, since I know how it works, I can afford to simplify matters without being wrong. Simplification is what helps explain it to the others, so it's a good thing in my book. Also, I really like this particular simplification, 'tis kind of nice. Eh... And I should really stop responding, we're kinda flooding it in here.