Disclaimer: Not a biologist
From what I understand, when an experiment is done with antibiotic resistant bacteria, scientists can look at the genome of the bacteria before and after the experiment to see what genetic changes in particular are responsible for causing the resistence.
If the reason for this change is due to true random mutation or some kind of programmed random mutation then how would we be able to tell the difference?
In particular, I think we have actually been able to watch mutations happen when cells divide. Given that we can actually see a cause for change in the genome that is not caused by the genome but rather the process of dividing, why should we suspect programmed mutation rather than random ones?
Also, in regards to your claim that the organelles of a cell are BELIEVED to be a result of evolution, what other
objective conclusion would you have science hold. Given that they act like independent cells, are disjoint, and have characteristics of a cell such as DNA, why would you consider that a "belief" rather than simply the best objective theory we can come up with given what we know. It is not as if scientists hold this "belief" true in their hearts in the same way people of faith hold true to belief in God.
By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, "...contentious but futile protest vote by democrats." By the time Jeb Bush is elected president you will be so wasted you wont even notice the war in Syria.
-- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
™ Version 4.2