Well, the label at least. I think we’d like to ditch the concept as well, but that’s probably harder. I suspect ditching the label won’t work either.
But Michael Zimmerman would like to do it and I agree with his reasons, even though I suspect people will continue to use the label that best advances their political agenda.
“Social Darwinism” isn’t something Darwin advocated. It doesn’t result from his theory. It has a loose correlation at some points. What gets me is why one would consider the way things happen in nature a basis on which to determine what we, as humans, should do. For example, the earth shakes and destroys buildings, but if I arrange for an underground explosion such as to destroy a few buildings, it would–and definitely should–be a crime.
In any case, if you’re more creative (or more optimistic) than I am, go help him out in the comments to his post.