Goku recently said that mostly evolution isn't random and that creationists often say it is. In fact this is one of the most common evolutionary arguments which are only made by assertion rather than argument, generally. An ad nauseam argument is an argument that's only credence is predicated on it's repetition.
In fact evolution is random according to the definition, if "random" is to mean without purpose or "by chance". Obviously the most usual and common definition is that something happens by chance, with no teleology involved.
We can think of common examples of sods' law, most people will say, "wouldn't you know it, I was five minutes from home and it started to rain on me even though it had been dry for two hours while I cycled."
What most people really mean by this, is that they want to blame sod's law, but really they know it happened randomly, there was no decision as to where and when the rain would drop, it was simply the time for precipitation to occur. Where a bird does it's droppings is random, it isn't aiming for your head. (or maybe that one can be disputed)
So I think at least the most common definition is the correct one usually, that "random" is the chance-happening of an event that involves no teleology. (no purpose).
So then one can see why evolutionists would want evolution to be defined as non-random, because this might give a tenuous varnish to evolution, because obviously the parts in an eyeball all being arranged to be conducive to sight, is anything but, "random". So they desperately want to say that natural selection is non-random.
However, the term, "natural selection" is a misleading term, because there is no purposeful selection, what it really means is differential reproduction, that those that aren't fit, simply won't survive to pass on genes in that circumstance. There is no literal, "selection", and this personification (or anthropomorphism) seems to make evolutionists make the error of thinking natural selection is not random.
In fact natural selection is random because there isn't any purpose behind the, "selection", and it is random as to which individual animal will receive fit genes. In the same way if water takes the path of least resistance, this is still random, for the path itself was randomly created, and the water doesn't "intend" to take the path, it merely takes it, there is no purpose involved, no conscious decision.
So then the law of the excluded middle applies, where there is a logical disjunction; "either P or the negation of P". In other words, something is either random or not random. If something does "NOT" have conscious decision/purpose behind it, then it is random.
So then to look at the specified complexity of a differential in a car and say "it is random" would be an absurd statement - it is only arranged that way to solve wheelspin. In the same way the parts of an eye are constructed to give sight.
But evolution is random. Mutations are random sampling errors, natural selection is simply the genes that will get passed on because they are fittest, only S@xual selection is arguably non-random.
Another factor we must consider is that where the law of the excluded middle applies there can be no trichotomy or tetrachotomy. Only a dichotomy. So then a contrary thing isn't the same as something antithetical. In other words, the opposite of a murderer isn't the contrary, "not a murderer." This is something a lot of people confuse, in fact the opposite of a murderer would be a giver-of-life, perhaps a woman that has had children for example.
CONCLUSION: Often evolutionists think creationists don't understand evolution theory by saying evolution is random, in fact as I have just proven, evolutionists don't understand the usual definition of random. (And appealing to obscure definitions doesn't count, the usual definition is the one that counts, that's just weaselling semantics.)