I would use chirality as arguing against randomness but not too strongly as I really can’t make a good case for it.
But I do think it would be better than this:
“Stephen: ‘As a scientist, I try to think logically—I just couldn’t consider having a Bible where some of it was true and some not—you believe the whole thing. I never tried to believe the days were long periods of time, or anything like that. It was just all or nothing. Some people say that we should leave aside the meaning of the days, that it is a stumbling block, but the true stumbling block is compromising God’s Word. Becoming a Christian, knowing that the whole Bible is true and God is the Creator—suddenly the whole picture made sense. The logic, and the watertight internal consistency of the Bible, and its consistency with what we see in the world, really impressed me. That’s undermined by long-age beliefs.’
...mostly nonsensenical quote...
I'm sure that you can! Stephen Grocott is no doubt smart and means well, but the idea of a 6,000-year old universe that was created in 6 24-hour days is neither scientific nor Biblical. The Hebrew word that Genesis uses for day, yom, has multiple meanings. I don't know why young-earth creationists insist that it has to mean a literal 24-hour day. Either God is lying to us through the evidence of his creation or yom as used in the creation story does not mean a 24-hour day. I vote for the latter.
By the way, check out this other quote from Grocott:
Life depends on having only pure forms of these (only one ‘hand’). But if life began in a chemical primordial soup, there was no means of supplying the necessary ‘single-handed’ compounds.
I'll wager that it won't take you too long to find the error in that statement!
Here is an interesting article on the chirality of serine and the role that it plays in life.