I think most people in this thread are taking these names a little too literally. In game terms these are just gates to compensate for the fact that GalCiv's tech tree is a bunch of parallel branches instead of a web. They do not dictate player or AI behavior. The current names do a good job of describing typical behavior in the early, mid, and late game.
Age of Expansion - In the early game most players will be settling their near-by planets and building up the infra-structure of their planets
Age of War - Once everyone has settled their own areas they will find their civs butting up against one another. One very common, but not inevitable result of this is war in order to continue expanding your empire. Even if a player peruses a completely peaceful path it is very likely that the AI will be declaring war against each other and the player at this stage.
Age of Ascension - The end game. Victory conditions are within sight, and civs start bee-lining toward them.
Will there be games were no one declares war during the age of war? Of course there will be, does that make it a bad name? No, it simply describes a common response to the the situation that will usually be found in that part of the game. I guess I don't understand the objection. If you are avoiding military conflict during a period named "the age of war" in the tech tree (and as far as I know, nowhere else), does that name somehow decrease your fun? Does it offend your sensibilities as a gamer?
I like the name "age of war" personally. Conflict is probably more accurate, but lacks the gravitas of war, expansion, and ascension. Names like "age of strife," don't zero in hard enough on the fact that this is an era characterized by civs bumping into one another, strife can come in many forms and to me implies internal rather than external conflict.