Yes it is. Not random means there is a aim, reason, or pattern - which is not true for Natural Selection. NS has no aim, no reason, no pattern and nothing to apply an aim, reason , or pattern.
Natural Selection is little more than an observation in the past tense - it is not a force that has aim, reason, or pattern therefore it is random.
I am guessing some Darwinists find comfort in thinking Natural Selection is not random?
Selection is conceptually different from other kinds of causation, but it is, nevertheless, entirely within the realm of natural causes studied by physics and chemistry. It is conceptually no different from learning.
Isn't a hawk eating dark rabbits on the snow a pattern? Why not? Not all the dark one are food, and not all the white ones escape, but there is still a pattern there. It's rather like tossing loaded dice. You don't always win, but you win more than you lose.
Natural Selection is little more than an observation in the past tense - it is not a force that has aim, reason, or pattern therefore it is random.
Remember the peppered moths? That was testing natural selection in action; there was nothing post-hoc involved.
I am guessing some Darwinists find comfort in thinking Natural Selection is not random?
I don't think we're communicating. If the hawk picked light and dark rabbits with equal probability, that's lacking a pattern; but if it feeds on those it can see easier, that's a pattern. Are you using the words the same way I am?