I agree with you as far as the Bible telling us in simple terms how God did it. However, your analogy is a false one. A better analogy is one of producing the full text of say, Hamlet, by generating a random string of characters of the appropriate length. Now, if you fail to generate Hamlet on the first try, instead of throwing it all away and trying again, you keep those letters that match the corresponding ones in the text of Hamlet and regenerate random letters for the ones that don’t. Keep repeating this process, and you’ll wind up with Hamlet much sooner that you might imagine.
The selection mechanism is different depending on what you’re talking about. For the big bang, the selection mechanism is the laws of physics. For instance, in a hot, dense environment like the early universe, it’s not possible for ordinary matter to exist. Radiation dominates the universe at this point. Sufficiently energetic radiation can result in pair production, that is pairs consisting of a particle and its antiparticle. However they will tend to meet and annihilate at a high rate, so radiation will continue to dominate.
At a certain time, however, the universe cools enough to allow matter to survive. The fact that there’s matter and not anti-matter is also a consequence of the laws of physics. This matter still cannot form even atomic nuclei at this point, but as things cool more, nuclei form. The scientific theory can even tell you which nuclei and their relative abundances. Further cooling allows individual atoms to form. None of this is a random process, any more than cooling water causing ice to form is random. It all follows from the laws of physics.
In similar fashion, in evolution, natural selection provides the non-random factor. We don’t just throw random genomes out there and the surviving ones do so only because of luck. Some genomes are better suited to survival and reproduction than others are. Those that are better suited tend to be the ones represented in currently living organisms. The untold number of lesser suited genomes are not represented because they have all died off.
Another area, albeit one in which the scientific evidence is much weaker, in which non-random processes play a role is in the formation of life (Yes, this is a distinct area from evolution. Evolution only explains how life diversified after it had already formed.) It’s not really know precisely what processes caused the first living cell to form. It does make sense, however, to propose that non-living matter can and does arrange itself into complicated patterns (think of snowflakes, for instance. Not that I’m claiming that life arose from snowflakes, but they are an instance of non-living matter forming complex patterns). Some of these patterns are bound to be more stable than others. After sufficient time, the stable ones tend to be the ones that exist. In some way, these stable ones develop the ability to copy themselves, and we’re on the road to life. Viruses are a good example of a system much like this. They are sort of an intermediate between living and non-living systems. They don’t have metabolism or other biochemical processes, but do contain nucleic acids and can make copies of themselves. Again, we don’t know exactly how the first life originated, but we can bet that it was not randomly.
Obviously, you would answer that “God did it”, but that’s not a real answer. HOW did God do it? That’s what we’re really trying to get at. As you admit yourself, He really didn’t give us the details in the Bible. The Bible pretty much contains what ancient people needed to know to get along in the world, get along well with each other, and build a lasting society. It does not tell us the details of how God created the universe. I’m not sure why you have a problem with the big bang, evolution or other theories of science. In fact, the big bang, with its universe dominated by radiation sounds an awful lot like “let there be light”. If God created the universe through the process described by the big bang, then He also put in laws of nature that led to the formation of life and then its subsequent evolution. Certainly formation of life from non-living matter sounds an awful lot like creating a living being from the dust of the earth, doesn’t it?
Unless you believe that God has put evidence in the universe that is intentionally misleading, then science cannot come up with an answer that conflicts with religion. There is one truth, and unless God is misleading us, science is just another way to try to find that truth. It is no less valid than religion for that purpose. The Bible is unsurpassed as a work of ethics and morality, but it is not a science text. As you say, it gives us a simple version of what happened. For those of us who want the details, we have to look to science.
As a bible believer and someone who has deep respect for science there are passages in Job 38 which should humble any scientist (including creationists) who believes they can understand "HOW God did it". I can think of no description of God where he comes accross in a mocking tone other than Job 38. The sarcasm and mocking of man's understanding is practically dripping off the page:
"Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! 4"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, 5Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it?…
Read the entirety and any God fearing person should remain very humble about understanding HOW God did it. God did not make this challenge to just Job. He made it to everyone that reads the text.
If God exists and this is His word then no man will ever be able to answer the all of the questions in Job.
For unbelievers and believers who presume to understand How God did it, they are fools.
But how many tries did the selection mechanism have? According to science is was only one. So to get it right on the one and only try is well, pretty impossible.
You said, “the universe cools enough to allow matter to survive”. What about that law of physics that says matter cannot be destroyed nor created? All matter that is here has always been here and thus cannot “survive” at a later time frame as conditions improve to support it. That would infer that matter was destroyed.
My point of contention about evolution is that scientists can tell you with certain authority (theirs by self appointment) what creatures have been here and what they looked like, ate, sounded like etc... but there are large gaps in human genealogy relative to the short time that we have been here compared to the lines of life forms they trace from previous eras. They want to rationalize the gap is the “missing link” and that once found will prove their hypothesis. Yes a hypothesis that we are suppose to take as a law. Well, where is it? We have found remains of a multitude of creatures and can pinpoint their time frame by the layer we locate them in then why cannot we target location efforts for this “missing link” in certain strata? Well, we have the problem is there is not a missing link.
I figure I will know the details of this master plan when the time comes and He tells me firsthand.