Yes, but the force of the filter must be proportionally as strong as the quantity of randomness flooding in.
Someone would still be justified to call it accidental if the filter only gives it a weak direction.
Well, again, the topic was the eye, and whether Richard Dawkins thinks it happened "by accident". Clearly he thinks that the filter of selection is strong enough to produce the eye; consequently, he does not think that the eye is accidental.
I hear you, but your changing the goalpost. My remark was concerning Nwr's OP, which in turn was in reply to Bolder-dash's statement that evolution as a whole is a random process.
And specifically the eye. If he'd confined himself to saying that quantitatively with respect to DNA the majority of evolution was random he'd have been telling the truth and so doing nothing to further God's Glorious Cause Of Creationism.