No, he didn’t. George Jefferson did.
Actually, the OP is quite mistaken. Social Darwinism was a huge element in fascist and Nazi philosophies, including those that mandated eugenics and genocide. It found a place in Communist thought as well.
Moreover, most Social Darwinists never advocated a “hands-off” approach to economic and social matters associated with classical liberalism - they wanted to intervene to drive “evolution” in the direction they preferred.
Therefore, it is clear that Europe saw far more of these theories actually put into practice, and where it happened in the United States, it was done by “progressive” people who wanted their nation or race to compete, and were fully prepared to disregard both tradition and the Constitution to make this happen.
No, no, he traveled aboard the U.S.S. Constitution on his trip to the Finch islands, where he made his famous study of the Galapagos beagle.
I think this has something to do with the current unpopularity of Social Darwinism in Europe. Anything associated with the Nazis is much more taboo in some European countries than it is in the US. We have computer games that depict Nazis, which are illegal in some European countries.
Uh huh. But it isn’t as if “laissez-faire” America had much to do with these atrocities, save for the lapses I discussed above - most of which were committed in a misguided attempt to compete with the Europeans.
No, the OP doesn’t. S/he doesn’t seem to understand what social Darwinism is and doesn’t seem to understand anything about U.S. history.
The dominant American ethos about hard work came over to the U.S. with its first settlers. It didn’t arrive in the late nineteenth century as a result of people reading Darwin or Herbert Spencer. The Puritans believed that being successful was a sign that you were among God’s elect. They believed in hard work to essentially prove they were saved. Of course, even without this religious justification, it was necessary for almost all early American settlers to work hard considering they were trying to carve a civilization out of the wilderness.
So those modern Christians whom the OP think believe in “social Darwinism” are really just continuing the tradition of the Puritans and other early American settlers. It has nothing to do with Darwin. America’s rugged individualism and attachment to free markets predates the theories of Darwin by centuries.
I used to work with this guy who was short, frail, near sighted, with bad eczema and nails that were thin and splitting. He was always talking about the evils of welfare and how people needed to live by “the law of the jungle”. I tried not to laugh.
He was probably trying to “pull him self up by his own bootstraps” 
You say the OP doesn’t make sense and then you provide a possible answer to it . . . yeah, that makes sense.
You also latch on twice to the term social Darwinism. I, perhaps unlike you, read the thread and Wildfire**MM does not once utter this term. He/she was using Darwin as an analogue. The words “social Darwinism” were put into his/her mouth by other posters.
I was explaining why the OP’s question doesn’t make sense. S/he doesn’t seem to know the first thing about Darwinism or history. My post tried to show why the very question s/he asked was flawed.
Since “survival of the fittest,” per Darwinian theory, pertains only to animals, it’s pretty obvious that the OP was referring to social Darwinism. If s/he wasn’t, then the OP makes even less sense. Obvioulsy the OP wasn’t using “survival of the fittest” in its biological context, since the assumption of the OP is that this notion is widspread among the religious right (which it clearly isn’t). The idea that “survival of the fittest” should be some sort of social or political policy is social Darwinism.
Why don’t we ask, because the opposite is pretty obvious to me. I perceived the OP as describing a loose analogy between Darwin’s ideas and capitalism. I think if s/he was referring to the well-documented, more strictly-defined concept of Social Darwinism, s/he would’ve called it by name.
Wildfire**MM?
(And by the way, what the hell sex are you? the pronoun game is getting old.)
And just an FYI (while we wait for clarification)…it’s ‘seems’. Seams are those things where the stitching goes on your clothes…
(My guess is the OP is talking about Social Darwinism as well…though gods know how one would interpret that OP)
-XT