I don't read antievolution sites. It's just my understanding from my college days.
How am I wrong in believing that Darwin believed in the survival of the fittest?
Here's what you said in the earlier message:
"The weaker of the species loses to the stronger of the species, that's Darwin's theory, right? Man is included."
The thing is that Darwin's theories have nothing whatever to do with the struggle to survive within a species. That's where you go astray with your "understanding from ... college days."
The Theory of Evolution simply says that changes in individuals of a species happen through genetic means. Those changes are passed along to the offspring of those individuals, if that individual survives to produce offspring.
The environment where the species lives offers both challenges and benefits for a species. If a change results in improved survivability for the changed member of the species, it will survive to reproduce, passing along those changes. If the change results in maladaptation, then the changes will not survive.
Over time, and many, many generations, some of the changes may result in a group of individuals diverging in characteristics from the others of its species. Eventually, the theory predicts, the two groups will diverge enough to no longer be able to interbreed. At that point, there is a new species.
The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the survival individual members of a species. It only has to do with the survival of characteristics that change within the population of the species.
It cannot be applied to society or culture.
"Survival of the fittest" it is constantly misinterpreted.
What should be said is Survival of something that is able to flourish in a given environment. Fittest (in the literal sense) has nothing to do with it.