I just want to jump in and comment on this post, especially this part
the mistake I believe you're making is assuming that both viewpoints are equal, you're drawing a false equivalence.
Where as the position that DNA, and how DNA functions fit the evolutionary model is based on the scientific method. As a scientific theory, evolution makes predictions, which are then tested against objective observations of reality. This is the scientific method, it's what makes a theory a theory.
Where as the first viewpoint is based on prediction, observation and falsification the second viewpoint is basically an argument from incredulity. It is a wholly subjective personal viewpoint which states "I personally cannot conceive how DNA came to be through natural means, therefore I posit a supernatural (magical) origin."
This argument is based on a lack of information and circular reasoning, not a special insight. It assumes that complexity cannot arise naturally because it is complex. It ignores that evolution is cumulative and gradual, and it ignores that while one person may have to make a retreat into the unverifiable supernatural to explain complexity, the same does not go for others.
Just my 2 cents.