As usual, your post was thought provoking. Trying to answer it raises
questions in my mind. I acknowledge that science is entitled to use their
own definition of "random", which I believe the public uses to mean "by
chance"- "not according to any plan, purpose or design". If we substitute
the word purpose, won't we have the same trouble defining it? I agree
purpose may not be a scientifically measurable quality, but don't we have to
define "purpose" in order to even discuss it. For instance, does a
purposeful event have to occur only with a specific goal in mind? Is an
event occurring according to some overall plan or design purposeful? Is an
event purposeful if is not isolated, but required to harmonize with the rest
of nature in some rational design?
I also agree that if purpose is not measurable, science can say nothing about
it. Nevertheless, individual scientists have opinions about the existence of
purpose. That difference of opinion will make no difference to those
scientists doing the nuts and bolts scientific measuring. However, whether a
scientist believes in purpose will influence where he looks for new answers.
A scientist not believing in purpose will be quite content with "random
mutation and natural selection" while a scientist believing in purpose will
look for more complex, rational mechanisms-mechanisms which relate to all of
nature. No scientist believing in purpose would be content to label 95% of
the genome "junk". A scientist who does not believe in purpose might regard
the Gaia concept as a metaphor, while those believing purpose would regard
nature as a truly interconnected whole. When no scientist feels intimidated
into accepting either purpose or lack of purpose as the only attitude
compatible with science, there will be no reason for an evolution/creation
controversy.
Bertvan