In science we work with the best we can. At this point we have zero proof of inteligent DNA, omniscient creators or directors. This paper is good, but it doesn'

In science we work with the best we can. At this point we have zero proof of inteligent DNA, omniscient creators or directors. This paper is good, but it doesn't add any breakthrough to what we know: virus-like particles taking DNA from one individual to another, ocasionaly jumping between species. At random. Also, in science, we work from null hypothesis and build on it. You can't work towards an hypothesis like "there is a supra-inteligence". You work from "there's nothing", analyze what you see and propose the simplest and more probable explanation. At the current state proposing a supra-inteligence raises more scientific questions than answers. All the scientific evidence we have at this moment points toward blind, random, stupid and un-directed evolution as the best explanation, thus we should ethically teach that. If you want to hypothesize otherwise, bring proof and observations that can't be explained with the current model. Philosophically and specially theologically you can say whatever you want, as long as the framework is internally consistent. For example, the "We live in a simulation" hypothesis is quite consistent, but we can't prove it, for or against. Nobody stops you from researching about inteligent creators, inteligent DNA, etc. But you shouldn't teach your hypothesis, like we don't talk kids about the "simulation hypothesis" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis> or "zoo hypothesis"<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_hypothesis>.