Yes, I agree that there is a conceptual difference. However, I do not see how a scientist has the tools to distinguish between the two scenarios. As we have covered several times in this forum (e.g. Would God's Guidance Be DNA-Detectable?), science cannot distinguish between “ontological” and apparent randomness. As @jongarvey helpfully observed (How should we define the supernatural? - #197 by jongarvey),
Thus, while the two scenarios are different, they are not decidable by science. Now, I grant that in terms of rhetoric, in the public sphere, many secular-oriented biologists (perhaps even some Christian ones) have used misleading language of some phenomena (including OOL) being “unguided” or “mindless” or “blind” or “truly random”, but none of these terms are strictly defined scientifically.
I would say that even some secular physicists might argue along the following reductionist lines: nothing in biology is truly actually random; it is all explainable by chemistry which is in turn explainable by physics; the universe is macroscopically (i.e. above the quantum level) deterministic and everything that happened was inevitable based on the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Thus even the origin of life was technically baked into the initial conditions of the universe.