Do you agree that evolution is capable of being directed?

No, not in the sense of being remotely directed by the sheer will-force of some unseen being. Evolution occurs via well-documented, observable, natural processes.

Exhibit A: Geneticists and genetic engineering, monsanto, etc.
Exhibit B: Sexual reproduction, breeding, etc.

Those require direct physical interaction with the life forms. A breeder or a genetic engineer can't direct a mutation by wishing for it, he's got to actively do something physical to the life form to bring about the change. And it's a lot of work, as anyone in the field will tell you, and it leaves evidence in its wake.

Do you agree there are mechanisms of evolution that is very suspicious?

No, I do not agree. I don't see anything suspicious about the mechanisms of evolution. Most of it is very amazing and quite awe-inspiring, but not suspicious. And none of it requires remote-control influence by a supreme being in order to be possible.

I hadn't heard of some of the specific "suspicious" examples you cited. Can you provide links to information on these? I will also dig around the talkorigins site to see if any of them are mentioned there.

But to say it's self-defeating to theorize a control entity is just as well as pointing to a text that says the world was created 6000 years ago and accepting it as such.

Right, my point is that the two are equal. Theorizing a subtle "control entity" is just as farfetched as the 6000-years-ago "poof".

As for Option 3: I think you'll find there is a very wide and varied number of philosophies all bound up here.

Right, and I consider them all to be equal, regardless of how far they lean towards theology or towards science. If a supreme being can willfully alter a single DNA molecule, then all of science becomes pointless because all of the things we've discovered about physics, chemistry, and biology can be ripped right out from under our feet at any time.