The Burden of Proof

There is a concept in law, debate, and (if we're being honest) any form of intellectual discourse known as the "burden of proof". When a claim is being made, the party claiming it and all its supporters have the burden of proving their claim, while those standing with the status quo (or rather, the challenged concepts) merely have to deconstruct the new arguments. For quite some time evolution had the burden of proof, but given the shitty evidence for religion it wasn't too difficult for it to win that battle. Now we find it difficult to claim that any part of evolution does not make sense, as it seems to sufficiently describe the biological world on this planet. I acknowledge the idea that perhaps it does not account for us, but Darwin is no idiot; not only did he clearly state that humans are animals, but this guy would not publish this theory without realizing that we animals behave a little differently. It is obvious to anyone who understands evolution that we are aptly accounted for- Shap made an argument today saying something like "all you have to do is look at a nursing home" and he said this soon after talking about how we make our own race weaker. Well, as we have said we have more free will than other animals due to our "consciousness", we can CHOOSE to act outside of the self-interest of our race, in fact we tend to act not for our species but for ourselves as individuals, because we have a more complex idea of "self" than most animals probably have. We weaken the species by helping the weak at the expense of the fittest, but this proves nothing. Just because these societal constructs we have created are not Darwinian does not mean that the fittest are not more likely to survive. Perhaps the concept of "fittest" has now shifted due to this human world we have created, but if we get right down to it a person with a genetic susceptibility for cancer is less likely to pass on their genes than someone without this genetic tendency.
The claim here seems to be that because we as humans choose to make our species weaker because it makes us feel better, Darwin must be wrong because he doesn't account for us. To anyone paying attention, it is obvious that he does account for us, but most definitely calls us idiots working against nature. I believe I have successfully brought forth the doubt in the affirmative's argument, you have yet to even approach your burden of proof. You can't just make some sort of statement or observation and pretend like that functions as an argument against evolution. I'm open-minded but if we're being intellectually honest the arguments made today left a lot to be desired. I desperately want to be convinced that this theory has a bunch of holes in it, just like any actual scientist worth their weight, so with that I urge you to keep trying because right now I see no reason to doubt evolutionary theory.