My friend, the professor, tells me that he takes no greater joy in teaching than disabusing young fundamentalists of their creationist notions. But even he laughingly tells me that, though it is vigorously hypothesized as such, there is no evidence that an organism's wanting or needing to change genetic material actually causes the necessary change for survival or evolution.

Besides, the problem is deeper than just whether order ever comes out of seeming random. That is not arguable. The problem is that many orders have to be in place for the survival of other randoms, were they to come into order.

It's not just whether rocks can show a pattern when strewn on a beach -- heck, ever look at mackerel clouds? (though, even IF I grant you that order can be found in seeming random -- if you were to take that grouping of rocks that seems to be in order/pattern on the beach, and actually measure the pattern you would disqualify ALMOST every one of the patterns as actually being random when compared to the kind of tolerances necessary for a pattern to be an actual pattern -- a pattern that would actually be analogous to the kinds of order necessary for the kinds of complexity found in life) The question is in how many randoms have to be in order in order for the kind of complexity that we're obviously observing in life to have occurred.

Couple that with the inability to demonstrate how an organism can "choose" to change its genetic makeup -- chose to "become" more complex -- in order to survive environmental change and now you're getting closer to the complexity of the issue.

You are offering a watchmaker's tale of your own. The solution suggested cannot be demonstrated unless within a closed, controlled system (just as the failings of the watchmaker analogy)