Let’s take a look at these remarkable replies from Fr. McWilliam’s Catholic textbook. He offers objections to intelligent design and then answers the objections:
Obj .4. Science follows the principle of closed causality, i.e. not to seek outside the world for an explanation of things in the world. But such a principle excludes an extramundane causes of the world’s order.
Reply. The scope of physical science is to discover the integral parts of bodies and to formulate laws of their activities; hence it is not called upon to give any explanation beyond that such and such is the nature of their bodies. Science takes nature as dataum, but if it be true science it does not condemn the philosophical attempt to explain nature.
On the contrary scientific investigation supplies philosophy with abundant data from which to reason to an extramundane cause of the world’s order. Thus science, whether willingly or not, becomes an ancilla philosophiae.
Obj .5. Out of all the combinations possible to chance the present world order is one. Therefore that order may be due to chance.
Reply… When we consider that there is order in each single atom, and molecule, and crystal, and cell, and organ, and organism, and in the interrelation of all the various classes of beings, and that there is cooperation to a refined degree among all the forms of energy, and when we reflect on the countless constituents of the material world, we begin to see how futile is the appeal to chance. But that is not all; the world is in a condition of constant change, and has been so, according to science, for millions of years. The astounding chance which the objection postulates for any given instant of that time must be repeated all over again in that infinitesimal fraction of the world’s duration; for order is preserved throughout the continuous change.
Such an occurrence is mathematically and metaphysically impossible. The idea of its happening by chance even once makes the mind reel …
Obj . 6. Given a certain amount of matter, equipped with certain forces, and granted that the matter thus diversified he distributed in the proper ratio and collocation, then all the physical and chemical processes which we recognize as world result necessarily. But what results necessarily does not require intelligence. Therefore world-processes do not require intelligence.
Reply. If what results is disorder, I grant that it does not require intelligence. If what results is an ordered series of events. then, that it does not require intelligence, I deny. The objection, in fact, fails on four counts. (a) it supplies that finality does not omit the natural agent_to act
That supposition is false. For, as we have seen, finality does not exclude necessity in the activity of the immediate material agent. (b) The objection is silent on the exact point at issue, which is not that the forces act and interact with necessity, but that they do so in such a way that
a very complicated and highly ordered universe results and continues unceasingly to result and develop. This is the fact that ways
stares us in the face, and from which the clamor about necessity (which no one denies) can never distract our attention. Necessity is irrelevant: it can be present in activities that produce
disorder, as in the wreck of a railway train; it can be present in activities that produce order, as in the smoothly operating machine. Necessity in activity is not opposed to finality, it is opposed to freedom.
But wherever there is order whether in free or necessary actions, intelligence alone can be responsible for the order. So much for the explanation of the distinction given at the beginning of our reply. Furthermore, (c)
reason cannot grant the postulate that plants and animals, and even the intellect of man, are, as the objection supposes, purely the results of physico-chernical forces. Finally, (d) the postulate begs the question, for it implies that matter with its forces and arrangement is unproduced and self-evident, that it not only acts necessarily but exists necessarily, that it is a se, or in other words the absolutely ultimate reality, and that therefore no further explanation of world-order can possibly be found. To ask that we grant such a postulate is tantamount to asking that we
grant the conclusion of the argument before the argument begins.
Obj . 7. Nature is a machine. But a machine needs no intelligence.
Reply.
Nature is more than a mere machine. Even a machine, however, needs an intelligent builder, and usually an intelligent operator.
Obj . 9. Many things in nature are abhorrent, as pain, parasites, the struggle for existence. But these things cannot be considered as intended by a wise and beneficent Creator.
Reply. The examples cited give evidence of intelligence, whether pleasant or not.
Our task here is to show that the Author of the world is intelligent. We leave to theodicy the vindication of His wisdom and goodness.
books.google.com/books/about/Cosmology.html?id=KFBVAAAAMAAJ
Of course, they will insist that it’s not really random at all. It’s just an accumulation of copying errors. 
Then we have “selection” which selects things – but really doesn’t. It just causes things to happen – but really doesn’t. It just preserves things, or not, based on random factors, which are not random. 