I'm still waiting for Darwinists to explain this paradox to me. 
Darwin wants to avoid engaging in teleology -- that is, he maintains that there is no purpose or goal in view as the terminus of the evolutionary process. But then he goes and contradicts himself by saying that evolution serves the "survival of the fittest" -- which implies a goal or purpose.
Similarly, Aquinas stated that nature working toward a goal shows the existence of God. Darwinists say it shows the existence of Chance.
I don't see a paradox. If I told you I wanted to be the best that I could be. You would ask me what I wanted to be best at. Survival of the fittest doesn't imply a goal. Because the definition of that which is most fit changes whenever the environment you are in changes. Blind cave fish are best suited for caves where there is no light but would not do well in a lake with preditors.