Comparing it to what? The "theory" that some unspecified entity did X with unknown methods and for inscrutable reasons? This is completely useless because it doesn't tell us what we should observe nor (what's even more important) what we shouldn't observe because such an unspecified designer is compatible with every possible observation.
So why should we teach something that is obviously not scientific in science class?
Oh and btw, welcome to FR
You expect someone to blindly believe that something as complex as DNA language, just miraculously assembled itself out of nothing? That's not science, that's blind faith as well.
The "theory" that some unspecified entity did X with unknown methods and for inscrutable reasons?
Colorful, but hardly accurate. Inscrutable reasons? the reason is quite clear. If you want to "observe" something, toss a frog in a blender then let the mixture of everything needed for life to create itself sit in the sun. Of course, that would be cheating, but if evolution theory is correct, the frog should remake itself. Or was a complex DNA machine with an assembled instruction language needed to assemble these ingredients correctly. The theory which makes more sense is obvious, and we CAN observe it in action and learn how it works while your waiting for your frog to reconstruct itself.