I've noticed a common fallacy of equivocation in creationist argument. "Random" is used anywhere you might say "undirected." For instance, the formation of an amino acid by what is actually a rule-based, deterministic chemical reaction is described as "random," presumably because no one is supervising the details.
The next thing you know, the odds of such a molecule randomly jumping together from constituent atoms are being computed (or vaguely remembered). But you didn't make it that way, you just set up the favorable conditions and let chemistry do what chemistry does. "Random" is now being used to justify an interpretation of not just "undirected," but the wider sense of "unpatterned," "lacking causal relationships," "haphazard," "stochastic."
You're comparing mutations which drive evolution to a deterministic chemical reaction? If that's true, then we must know the mechanism which drives mutations, as we know the mechanism which drives chemical reactions, or we must have at least experimentally observed the same mutation occuring repeatedly under the same conditions. Which of those is the basis for saying mutations are deterministic?
I wasn't aware that it was an accepted evolutionary doctrine that the mutations aren't really random as the dictionary defines it. Can you give me a link for that?