What is scary is how scientifically ignorant most pundits are. Anyone with the remotest familiarity with stat. thermo. - even the kinetic theory of gases - wouldn't inveigh against randomness in science. What is it about biology that people like Neumayr feel qualified to rail against its fundamental principles, whereas (presumably) they wouldn't feel qualified to express skepticism about atoms or string theory?
There is some railing against string theory on FR though (by creationists.) YEC's must also reject geology, physics, and astronomy. One guy at least has complained about imaginary numbers (he said that's when he walked out of class.) Chemistry is rejected mostly by positing some regurgitated version of vitalism.