Oh, I entirely agree. I think it's been clear the mutations, particularly in the more complex beasties, are far from random. However, I don't think that makes a particularly outstanding case for ID.
When a theory (or a pillar of a theory) is falsified, is it necessary to have a substitute in hand? In other words, if the randomness pillar were falsified tomorrow, I suspect there would not be a quick agreement on a replacement.
Your suggestion of random selection from a poplation with a central tendency could be one, but wouldn't there be others?
Most likely not, but falsification is a nuanced thing. If we have the werewithal to be sure that the falsefication is definitive, we likely are actively working on the replacement already. The perihelion of mercury experiment comes to mind.
In other words, if the randomness pillar were falsified tomorrow, I suspect there would not be a quick agreement on a replacement.
Actually, I'd suggest that this is pretty close to being rather in the same condition as pertained for the perihelion of mercury experiment. I did not originate the idea that mutation could be naturalistically directed. It is an idea that has been crouching around the periphery for a while now because of various timeline discrepencies between the fossil clock and the DNA mutation rate clock, and the untoward apparent longevity of some of the new entries in the Tree of Life.
Your suggestion of random selection from a poplation with a central tendency could be one, but wouldn't there be others?
Well, sure. My personal opinion is that divine intervention or panspermia or both are now, on the available evidence, more likely candidates than spontaneous generation on this planet.
The other question, however, is: "is the candidate ready to be put on the scientific table?" We don't accept default explanations in science. If an hypothesis can't hold its water against the various criteria required of a scientific thesis, we are just going to have the let the problem go until we're way smarter.
Um--this is a pillar of the present argument of evolution by variation and natural selection. The point being that--contrary to creationist's largely unstated assumptions that selection occurs over a uniform continuous distribution of evolved entities--selection occurs over a distribution with a central tendency. It is this central tendency that is the sculptor's knife, taken unwarrantedly by creationists as evidence of divine intervention, design, or irreducible complexity.