You are confusing Darwinian Evolution with Social Darwinism. Darwinian Evolution by natural selection is a theory that attempts to explain the origin of different species of organisms; it's scientific. Social Darwinism is not science, it is a rather poorly conceived political/ethical theory that those in power use to justify their exploitation of those who are weaker and poorer than them. Darwin himself never said that evolution favors the strong or the violent and he would be appalled that his name has been attached to such an idiotic philosphy.
I am not interested in Darwinian Evolution, or Social Darwinism, only EVOLUTION. For some strange reason some evolutionist's on this forum want to keep making the separation. They keep bringing up God and creationism as something to be debunked to support their position. Leave God and creationism out of this.
And stop separating the organic and the social/cultural. It's all evolution. Some here sound more like 'lukewarm' evolutionists. Not 'true blue, dyed in the wool' evolutionists. If you were political party members you certainly would not be of the inner circle. Only attending every second or third rally. Perhaps someone to be watched.
Everything has an explanation and being as evolution has the answer to all behavior, animal or human, organic or social/cultural, then evolution has the answer. You just have to accept it. If you don't understand it yet, keep educating yourself.
Because the theory of evolution was never meant to explain society. There is no 'social evolution'. Social Darwinists claim that evolution favors the strong over the weak, the smart over the stupid, the quick over the slow. Oh really? Is a mouse strong? Are clams smart? Is a sloth quick? Evolution favors anyone who lives long enough to pass their genes on to the next generation, using whatever means are at there disposal. Unless these Jihadi suicide bombers have kids and have left behind a fat life insurance policy that covers suicide bombers, then they are evolutionary failures! Blowing yourself up is not a sound survival strategy; it's right up there with celibacy in the list of evolutionarily maladaptive behavior.
Stop calling it a theory please. It's a fact.
A mother and father strap explosives onto the chests of their two small children. They direct them to walk to the local police station and then, when inside, explode the devices. They do it. "ALLAHU AKBAR!!!" God is great. Islam grows stronger. A worthy sacrifice for the cause. Mother and father are proud. They did not collaborate with their neighbors. They did it all on their own. Two children die but truly worth it for a great cause
[ Today my country, Canada, celebrates such a victory, Vimy Ridge, a small insignificant battle during WW 1, but we will brag about it anyways. Somehow time has turned all these slaughtered boys into heroes. It sounds so much better and something the politicians can make hay with.]
However, back to evolution. World War 1 for example. We may talk about the immediate cause but it says nothing for how this behavior developed in evolutionary time. We may come up with explanations about what brought on WW 1 but to understand why war exists we must look to evolution for an explanation. These two explanations are not competing with each other. They must support each other and both must be understood to properly comprehend the event. How does evolution dictate the everyday decisions of humankind?