The programmer is the intelligent designer, not an unaided, random, "natural" selector. You are confusing the definition of "random" here. Random in this case should mean "arbitrary", but you are using it as though it means "non-deterministic" (a correct definition, but not correct used here). The programmer IS an arbitrary selector (there is an infinite number of ways to write any piece of code). A programmer doesn't add any value to the process if the selection process isn't deterministic.
"You are confusing the definition of "random" here. Random in this case should mean "arbitrary", but you are using it as though it means "non-deterministic" (a correct definition, but not correct used here). "
I'm afraid that only one confused... is you.
The supreme question for this thread is really whether DNA can self-form naturally, in an unaided, unintelligent, primal, "random" environment.
In this sense, "random" infers that an intelligent intervention is not "loading the dice" (i.e., loaded dice aren't random).
When a programmer creates a program, her code is not "random". Said program was created through intelligent intervention, not naturally, not randomly.