But that is the the only logical conclusion that you could draw about the quite Dawkinsian concept. How else would "DNA" do what is claimed for it? I would like to ask chemists who have tried to synthesize or even analyze DNA if they thought they could do that without a huge amount of hard gained knowledge. And that's just an act of replication of a known type of molecule, it's not the creation of a physical entity that is, in effect, a totally unplanned and, often, entirely unexpected external phenomenon or an internally generated inspiration in excruciating detail and subtlety. What such sciency materialists demand of DNA is far, far more an impressive act of knowledge and technical virtuosity than anything even the most accomplished of scientists has ever done in creating such entities and fitting them with absolute precision into an existing, working, massively complex "mechanism" where they function perfectly, instantaneously. It makes the entire collective achievements of computer science look like nothing in its relative simplicity. And it does so hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of times a day in each and every being who has a brain. What accounts for the clear behavior of organisms without brains, I've asked before. Why...... why, it's downright god-like in a far more impressive way than such guys are supposed to believe can possibly exist!
** Update: When I said, "All of them would have to have those same abilities which far surpass the known abilities of the entire world of science and scholarship" I should have noted that this is literally true BECAUSE EVERY KNOWN ASPECT OF SCIENCE AND SCHOLARSHIP WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN CREATED BY "DNA" OR ANY OTHER THING ORIGINATING THE PHYSICAL, MATERIALIST "MIND". If you reject that, you would have to reject Dawkins' rather silly idea about the creator having to be "more complex" when he is trying to debunk God. Only, since his conception of "God" is certainly of a God who has the attributes of things in a universe, the similarly physical gods assigned to create our minds would doubly have to have effective universal knowledge.
Update 2: OK, the longer I think of this the more obvious it is that the atheist-materialist "brain-only" brain does, literally, involve that whatever model of that they present, it would, actually, have to have universal knowledge, it not only would have to have a prescience of science and scholarship but of every aspect of all possible future knowledge. The promissory notes of materialism, the eventually promised Theory of Everything, would already have to have their answers in such a model or, at least, the ability to construct those in our brains which, before the requisite knowledge was present in them, could hardly be held to contain that knowledge. Or, at least, I'm throwing that in as a proposal for discussion. Now, my experience tells me, the atheists will be prepared to talk about my cooties or some such thing as they pretend I haven't said what I did here. Apparently their god-like minds aren't prepared to discuss that. The gods of atheism are false gods.