On your last point, surely the problem is in suggesting that there is a thing called “random” which is independent of God’s actions, whereas it’s possible (and goes back to Aquinas and even the biblical Deuteronomic historian) to see randomness as merely the signature of God’s overall activity in sustaining and governing his creation.
Thus, the appearance of any particular letter in this post is random as far as Kolmogorov would be concernced, though the overall distribution would show a specific mathematical pattern (as do quantum events, hence the possibility of quantum physics) that corresponds to a piece of English prose, rather than Italian or Welsh. The only way to distinguish it as purposive, rather than as words chosen “randomly” from a dictionary by a computer, is to read it.
So there is a detectable monkeying with events (let’s assume we mean “quantum” events to suit Russell, but it needn’t be restricted to that), and it’s called the order, beauty, intelligibility, and purpose of reality. Which, like English prose, can only be perceived by assuming meaning, not by abstracting data scientifically.
Now such a conclusion would, I grant, demand that the whole of [quantum] reality, not some subset of “key” events, would constitute God’s activities - or else these would be distinguishable from “nature” - understood as something sitting apart from God’s governance. In other words, understood via the Enlightenment distinction between “God” and “Nature”, rather than the historic doctrine of “God’s creation”. Kepler did not seek to find the bits of nature that God determined, but how he determined nature.
You suggest that this conclusion means the problem is set up wrong, because it only fits with Calvinism. But with respect, I thought the project of both science and theology was to match our ideas to reality, not reality to some particular theoretical idea like “Arminianism” or “Kenoticism” - or “Calvinism”, come to that.
Otherwise one would have to say that evolutionary theory has been posited wrongly simply because it is incompatible with Young Earth Creationism, whereas BioLogos, at least, is arguing that science makes YEC a non-runner as an idea.
Some of us would argue that dividing creation up between “God” and “Nature” leads only to incoherence. Up to and including Arminius, the business of mainstream theology and theological philosophy was to explain how God was both sovereign over (ie, “willed” or “determined”) every detail of reality, and how that could nevertheless encompass the existence of evil, of genuine human choice, of secondary causes and so on.
I would argue it was only really the influence of Socinanism that began to insist on a stark dichotomy between God’s will and everything else. So the idea that “God cannot determine everything” is just as subject to criticism as “God created the world in 4004 BC” - the main difference being that the former has been part of mainstream Jewish and Christian doctrine for millennia, whereas the latter has only been a major issue for a couple of hundred years, in Western Protestantism.