The arguments laid out on the linked page are orthogonal to any questions of value or goodness.

The page's arguments conclude that "life is trying to occupy all space, and to become master of the universe." However, nothing is said as to what "life" will do with its mastery, and thus these arguments are unrelated to the question of why the future might be good, except insofar as most people would rank futures in which life is wiped out as not good.

I believe that it is fairly trivial to show that while evolution is in fact an optimization process, it is not optimizing for goodness. It is a pretty big jump from "evolution has an arrow" to "...and it points where we want it to". In fact, I believe that there is significant evidence that it does not point where we want. As evidence, I point to basically every group selection experiment ever.

I would also disagree that it is "already quite good". While it is certainly not the worst that could be conceived of, there is significant room for improvement. However, the current standing of the universe is less relevant to the article (which I enjoyed, by the way) than that there is room for improvement according to the values that we as people have, which is obvious enough to me as to need no defense.

I also object to the use of the word benign in the comment, as it appears to be there simply to sneak in connotations. On the linked page, the word is used as a synonym for "capable of bearing life", which can be applied to our universe without much controversy. However, when used in a sentence with the words "progressive" and "goodness", it seems that "capable of bearing life" is not the intended definition, and even if it is, it is predictably not the one that a reader will immediately reach for.

Yes, there are definitely other possible explanations, though the ones I gave seem most common. But yours seems to beg the question---why does evolution lead to more goodness over time?