Can Man Ultimately Evolve Into "The Good"?

The key to understanding Social Darwinism has always been grasping the concept of the interrelation between social and biological evolution. I base my understanding of such matters on Herbert Spencer's vision (although such a vision would more properly be called Social Lamarckism). Social Darwinism is not a moral system per se; it cannot tell us what exactly to do under certain circumstances and how we should act. Rather, it i a concept which describes a process inherent in all living things. Namely: That which is in use (being necessary) will grow and enlarge while that which is not in use (being unnecessary) will decline and disappear. Thus, for instance, in a biological sense, humans do not have gills. When our ancestors left their aquatic environment they used these organs less and less until they vanished completely. The same process takes place with regard to societal functions of man. Aggression is a necessary impulse in primitive human societies because it was required for survival in a primal sense. Aggressive individuals were more likely to be able to take what they need and eliminate opponents. They were the ones that produced the most offspring. The 'might makes right' standard of the primitive state of nature required humans to live this way. However, according to Spencer, society and cooperation are based on the lack of aggression. Therefore to be well suited for society humans must curb their aggressive impulses. Overly-aggressive individuals will not be welcome and will die childless - excluded from society. Non-aggression will therefore be favored in a moral sense as well as in a biological sense (the non-aggressive people will now have the upper hand and be able to pass on their superior genetic material). The final product of this process will be the "perfect man".
Now here is where I differ from the great Mr.Spencer:
Firstly - I do not believe we can ever determine what the perfect man will be like. Will he be a non-aggressive altruist for whom causing pain brings pain and doing good bring pleasure as Spencer claims? I am afraid that sounds overly Utopian and, may I say, Marxist!
Secondly, Mr.Spencer bases his claims on that sad and evil beast UTILITARIANISM. This strange and terrible concept has devoured many great minds and twisted them into thinking that which is right is that which 'brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number'. I can never subscribe to such views.
On the whole, however, Spencer is right! Social Evolution is a process whether we like it or not! I do not disagree with Spencer about his conclusions either (I am simply not sure it is possible to prove the 'perfect man' claim). Every Christian bone in my body believes his conclusions are right. But this is, again, just a belief - not rooted in fact or empirically provable. Logic (of which Spencer is a great champion) may, however, point us in the right direction. Maybe man can become good, maybe man can end up existing "in God's image"? We'll never know...

And regarding my last post - the Clintons seem to have a very peculiarly tight relationship with Kosovo. Why else would the citizens of that 'state' erect a statue of the most pathetic US President of the 20th Century?