@Qcmbr
Thank you for your comments.
I disagree. What I said is on the ball and is evident. No matter what you define as evolution the methods of evolution remains the same: elimination of the weak, survival of the fittest, death and struggle is an evolutionary progression that eliminates the unfit for whatever reason, and so on.
Now, I noticed you moved the subject to one more toward social evolution. Social evolution favors mutually beneficial or selfish behaviors.
As our societies continue to disintegrate we are seeing less of "mutually beneficial" social evolution and more of "selfish behaviors" social evolution. When the Bible's influence was strong in society we saw the opposite. As we see the Bible's influence decrease in society we more of the "selfish behaviors" with the implication that that is human society's "natural" gravitation.
No surprises here!
Having said that, we have come accustomed to the rules of "fair play" and doing things "by the book". What constitutes "fair" and what "book" to follow is always up to interpretation -- often favoring the one with the power, the influence, the political savvy, the winning blackmail, and/or a host of other wild cards that stacks "him" higher than "you".
So after, as you say, "millions of years of evolution that strongly rewards (emotionally, physically and in terms of survivability and efficiency) family and and clan cooperation", if you can't beat them, then make alliances. And those alliances are good only when the status quo is maintained. When either one of you sees an advantage, you had better "do it" first before he "does it" to you. LOL (So, you see? It's not "cooperation" but biding your time until you are stronger or your "partner" is weaker -- so much for millions of years of "evolutionary cooperation" as you claim.)
And it goes right back to what I said before: You can enjoy a world that is run (socially) by evolution where the strong (in whatever necessary ways) survive. Or you can enjoy a world where (God's) righteousness dwells - which is quite un-evolutionary paradigm as it gets.
I think even the most strident evolutionist wouldn't favor a strictly evolutionary world -- unless he sits at the top of the hill and holds all the cards.