For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,... so that they are without excuse.....
Romans 1:20
"Likely no one disputes that copying errors and truly random 
mutations
happen. But there’s always been an absence of direct evidence that all mutations, especially genetic changes associated with suitable adaptations to environmental challenges, are fully random. There’s a growing body of evidence that many mutations are not random in their formation.
In fact, many genetic changes seem to be specially programmed as
targeted responses to specific external conditions. When cells detect
different environmental conditions, innate mechanisms that are currently
not well understood can change their chromosome state and alter the
patterns of chemical tags on DNA.
Some evolutionary biologists held an astoundingly candid conference in
Lisbon, Portugal, called On the Nature of Variation: Random, Biased and
Directional. The conference’s aim was to provide a context for
“critically evaluating the rationale behind” evolutionary assumptions
about “variation randomness in the light of new developments.”
**On center
stage for reevaluation was “the underlying assumption supporting
adaptationism…that variation is somehow random, namely, that it is
neither biased nor directional.” It’s hard to imagine evolutionists
seriously asking the questions....
Q: “Why was variation characterised as
random in the first place?” 
Two recent papers are titled “What prevents mainstream evolutionists teaching the whole truth about how genomes evolve?” and “Who ever thought genetic mutations were random?”
A: That’s because longstanding evolutionary theory “is based on the tenet
that new phenotypes arise through a process relying on the raw material
supplied by accidental, numerous, successive, and slight genetic
changes.”
The evolutionary biologists organizing the Lisbon conference are fully
familiar with the mantra “mutations occur at random.” No biology student
escapes indoctrination.
That’s why it was shocking, yet refreshingly honest, when the Lisbon
conference organizers asked why variation was characterized as random in
the first place.
-----If creatures were static and could not adapt to changing 
conditions,
then a theory of evolution could never get going. But creatures can
change. Thus, it is the explanation of adaptation that is steering the
direction of the creation-evolution debate. How adaptation happens, it seems, is a question of vital importance.
----Here’s a hypothetical mechanism: most biological adaptation happens when
highly regulated innate systems direct modifications of genes and
traits toward purposeful outcomes. This hypothesis has long been
intolerable to most biologists, not because it’s scientifically
untenable, but because it’s repugnant to Darwinian philosophy.
Q: Why?
A: A
hypothesis like this could be associated with words like foresight,
purposeful, regulated, directed, or targeted. These words characterize
the outcome of engineered systems designed by a rational engineer.
Ordinary people might intuitively begin to think the forbidden thought
that God engineered creatures to be adaptable.
* The anti-theistic power of Darwinism lies in one thing only—its
anti-engineering assumptions. Darwin’s key followers developed a model
of adaptation that assumes genetic changes are random, accidental,
broken, trial-and-error, noncontrolled, and purposeless.
Gould gives the history behind the anti-design concepts built into
Darwinian theory.
*He summarizes three criteria for genetic variability:
Variation, in short, must be copious, small in extent, and undirected.
A full taxonomy of non-Darwinian evolutionary theories may be
elaborated by their denial of one or more of these central assumptions.
He clarifies the meaning of directed variation as “adaptive pressures
[that] automatically trigger heritable variation in favored directions.”
Gould adds that wholly unbiased variation is fundamental to evolutionary theory. “In a sense, the specter
of directed variability threatens Darwinism” in the most serious way. Q: Why?
A: Because automatic responses sound like the outcomes of elements
corresponding to human-engineered systems.
The Lisbon conference organizers underscored the lethality of directed
genetic change to the anti-design purpose of evolutionary theory,
saying,
Futuyma (2005, p. 179) makes the same point by invoking the spectre
of Lamarckism: “The argument that adaptively directed mutation does not
occur is one of the fundamental tenets of modern evolutionary theory.
If it did occur, it would introduce a Lamarckian element [nonrandom,
useful changes to traits in response to changing conditions] into
evolution, for organisms would then acquire adaptive hereditary
characteristics in response to their environment.”
After presenting evidence for nonrandom genetic change, they added that Futuyma only makes “reference to theoretical reasons for dismissing the possibility that mechanisms of directional mutagenesis might exist.”----It’s remarkable that well-informed Darwinists like Gould and Futuyma see
nonrandom, directed genetic change as a nightmare (i.e.,“a specter”) to
evolutionary theory. Perhaps creationists and ID advocates should be
investing focused effort to make the nightmare come true.
Two researchers summarize what they and others have found:
But this view [random mutation] is being revised by discoveries of molecular mechanisms….These mechanisms reveal a picture of highly regulated mutagenesis, up-regulated temporally by stress responses and activated when cells/organisms are maladapted to their environments—when stressed—potentially accelerating adaptation. Mutation is also nonrandom in genomic space, with multiple simultaneous mutations falling in local clusters, which may allow concerted evolution….Assumptions about the constant, gradual, clock-like, and environmentally blind nature of mutation are ready for retirement."
ICR