There is a perfectly good term for when all probabilities are equal and it is equiprobable.
I think this shows a divergence between the actual definition and the common usage. I think many uneducated people do think that "random" means "equiprobable". Further, I think they'd be confused by even a probability distribution of two six-sided dice, because the result of 7 is so much more likely than that of, say, 2.
Further, I suspect that the creationist demagog's frequent use of "random" to mean "equiprobable, unpredictable, undirected and wildly out of control" has reinforced this. Perhaps another example of the dumbing-down effect of fundamentalism.
It can be jarring sometimes, but many of us can forget that by simply having a PhD or MD, we are different from
97% in the US, who don’t have a Ph. D. or a Professional degree, and certainly the over 75% who don’t even have a bachelor’s degree (data from Figure 2,
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-24.pdf).
As such, we can’t expect everyone to think the same or have knowledge of even English definitions to the same degree.
Add to this (as has already been mentioned), that without a little thought, most people don’t realize that a non-controlled process can be non-equiprobable. I know that sounds silly, since even two six-sided dice are a good illustration of a noncontrolled process giving a predictable result, but that seems to be how people have been told to think. Thus, when a creationist tells them that evolution can’t be true being that everyone knows that all non-human-directed process is “random” (meaning equiprobable, unpredictable, undirected and wildly out of control), they swallow it. In other words, the charlatan propagates the idea that a process is *either* intelligently directed OR it must be out of control, unpredictable, equiprobable, and unable to create anything more orderly or complex than it’s beginning materials.
I think THAT’s the root of this whole discussion, and indeed the root of one of the most effective ways creationists persuade people to be anti-science.
-Equinox
_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at
An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -
Naturalistic Paganism Home)