Ok, first off, saying "Evolution has for some time been improving us as members of its true end goal" does not mean I believe an abstract concept is sentient with goals and opinions. Neither is that my own goal (I'm terrified of the concept). It is said pragmatically. Semantically I should have said "humans are much more likely to survive in a group than by themselves, which results in survival prioritizing individuals that are adapted to their group's needs", but it's kind of a mouthfull.

Then, I'd argue saying "we wish to unify ourselves beyond all borders" would not be that controversial. I think it is generally seen as immoral to not want to work with people of other cultures. We've invented all kinds of words that make us not want to support those kinds of attitudes (like racism, discrimination,...). Maybe I'm being overly liberal here, but I think our level of morality implies this wish for unification. It's hard to morally argue otherwise.

For the rest, I'm not a biologist. You could take this article as an opinion that I try to justify logically. My definition of evolution is not a biological one, it may even be a definition of something else, but I'm pretty sure it's closely connected to evolution. In any case, the definition sentence is pure logic and I'm basing this article on it. I am just observing that people seem to form groups in abstractly similar way that unicellular organisms form multicellular organisms. It's an opinion, but I wouldn't expect it to be a controversial one (maybe if you are religious).

And I have taken religion as a representative of basic primitive human beliefs. I mean, it is a belief system. I don't know why anyone would have a problem with that.