[Heartlander]

Selection isn't random, and anyone writing a review that doesn't recognize this shouldn't be writing the review.

I did not see the word random in the quote or the article. I did see it in your review of the article though:

No. Darwinism posits that any random changes that happen to enhance survival are passed down to the next generations, and any random changes the don't enhance survival lead to the death of the indivdual, minimizing the number of chances it has to be passed into descendants.

So let me ask, is the evolutionary process “ aimless, unintentional, purposeless, and without rhyme or reason”?

[AndrewC]

and any random changes the don't enhance survival lead to the death of the indivdual, minimizing the number of chances it has to be passed into descendants.

It never ceases to amaze me how the Darwinian theory is so much like jello. First, all living things die(one might make a case for simple asexual organisms being somewhat exceptional to this but then that would confuse the bad mutation scenario). Second, I have heard that neutral mutations sometimes become fixed.

[edsheppa]

I did not see the word random in the quote or the article. ... So let me ask, is the evolutionary process “ aimless, unintentional, purposeless, and without rhyme or reason”?

"Aimless" and "without rhyme or reason" comes close enough to "random" in the conventional sense of these threads that your objection isn't justified. In any case, selection isn't aimless nor without rhyme or reason which is the point the poster was making.