Nonsense. The programmer is the intelligent designer, not an unaided, random, "natural" selector. The programmer is to programs what God is to Life.
Ask yourself why the programmer ever does anything to his program. He is responding to the suggestions of the users, his employer, benchmarking of competitors' programs, market studies, Computer science journals, etc., etc. These are the selection pressures. He is just the guy that does for the computer code what it cannot yet do for itself (i.e., produce descendants with modification). Those codes that work and are profitable are copied and used until they are replaced by better ones. This is an evolutionary process that depends on lots of shared information from lots of sources. There is no one all knowing programmer (Bill Gates notwithstanding) directing the development of programs. Most are copycats working with simple algorithms and effecting rather unimportant changes (witness the proliferation of games).
In fact, every programmer's own brain is a kind of a computer with a program of its own. About two million years ago in human evolution the brain began to be capable of storing more information than the genome. From that point cultural evolution began its ascent leading eventually to this moment where our two brains are clearly possessed of widely divergent sets of program instructions. Both are functional but one clearly has mistakes which need correcting. Fortunately there are vast libraries of scientific literature available to effect a significant programming improvement should you be so interested.
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.