Not in the least. What is a poor view is to tell God that His creation happened by random chance. Since we were made in His image, I interpret that to mean we were designed. To establish evolution as the manner with which we were created insists that God Himself relies on chance. This further insists that, since we were an accident, that we are not in need of a saviour. Otherwise evolution lives and preaches the fantasy of random chance and natural selection.
You mention that mutations are predictive of adaptation. Science merely attempts to rationalise observation in order to make interpretive extrapolation from the evidence. If mutations are predictive, tell us precisely what evolutionary biology has predicted? What medicines have they created that have allowed we humble organisms to adapt to our environment? Are we able to cure even the common cold? No. No disease has been eradicated, no ailment has been cured. We cannot re-grow the central nervous system, nor the optic nerves. We cannot re-grow a limb or an organ. As the top of the proverbial food chain, we should be able to do all of these things were we to believe as the evolutionary biologist say. Yet, we simply cannot. What evolutionary biology has discovered can be just as easily explained through observation and adaptation.
Further, please do not misuse scripture. The quote from Isaiah is actually: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." and speaks of His spirituality and our carnality.
Since we were made in His image
Is he telling us that God has two legs, two arms and a head?
And it is the carnal mind that insists that what looks random is not God’s purpose. allmendream reminds us of the comment on the relationship between “random chance” and the will of God found in Proverbs 16:33: “Lots are cast into the lap, but they are disposed of by the Lord.”
As I say, it is a poor view of God’s sovereignty that regards “random chance” as somehow beyond His All-Holy will.
Still, there is something in what you say, as atheist polemicists, plainly having no regard for God, or His sovereignty, somehow fancy that “randomness” as part of a causal model is contrary to purpose (which my example from metallurgy shows is a false premise), and seek to lead people astray by insisting that the technical narrow notion biologists really invoke, which I would prefer to call “anoracular” rather than “random”, is in fact randomness in the mathematical sense, which they then fancy is equivalent to randomness in the philosophical sense (which by definition is contrary to purpose).