No. Rather, I'd be curious to find out exactly why and how W. uses this colloquialism.
Basically the paper begins by saying that change in structures is not neutral (neutral theory) but hase a tendency to "good mutations" (25% they say) and that changes are therefore not all random, that there are "competitive pressures" and "natural selections." "Darwinian forces" are running at about 25%.
How is this any different that Herodotus, who thinking about why the Greeks ("the fittest") beat ("natural selection") the Persians ("flawed") figured that whoever wins ("good mutation") a war ("competitive pressure") has the gods ("Darwinian forces") on its side?
In a single act, such as a battle, large groups of individuals with roughly the same genetic composition are reduced overall. The winners perpetuate, without clear indication that a genetic difference led the Greeks to success or that a genetic difference can be observed in the population after the battle.
There are schools of social Darwinism that, of course, propose that human behavior can be explained in Darwinian terms. The success of a war is dependent on a variety of factors which are not selectable, for example, the hatred between the Greeks and the Persians. What it comes down to, really, is that the ability to wage war at all can be selected for in Darwinian terms. Both Herodotus and the Persians had the gods on their side.