The hawk knows nothing about Natural Selection - it eats what it can. The only pattern observed is Hawks eat - I hope you don't think the fact that Hawks eat proves natural selection is not random
Look - if Natural Selection is not random than something most be controlling/setting the pattern - name the something or tap-dance further.
You would seem to be confused between the hawk's behavior exhibiting a pattern and the hawk knowing something about natural selection. The hawk can preferentially kill animals which are the most easy to detect without knowing or caring that his behavior matches part of a certain scientific theory widely discussed among humans.
Hoping this straightens things out for you but not feeling too optimistic, etc. etc.
You: The hawk knows nothing about Natural Selection - it eats what it can. The only pattern observed is Hawks eat - I hope you don't think the fact that Hawks eat proves natural selection is not random
I don't understand; the hawk eats what it can see, this happens to contrast with the background. Do you have a problem with that? Why isn't that a pattern?
In what sense is the hawk's meal random?
... The only pattern observed is Hawks eat ...
No, it isn't the only pattern observed; they eat what they can see, in the case of Arctic hares, that means ones that don't have white coats. Why don't the white-coated rabbits have more white-coated babies? If they do, why doesn't this count as natural selection?
Look - if Natural Selection is not random than something most be controlling
Huh? How does that follow? Are we using he words "random" and "pattern" in the same way?! What is wrong with saying that the hawk selects the dark colored rabbits against the snow? Doesn't it? So what's in control?