Sounds like your studies have been quite comfortably channeled along the lines of the boundaries already set by the priests of your particular discipline. How comforting.
But then Crick et al never were Orthodox Bible believers, were they.
BTW, what are your thoughts on the recently postulated/discovered codings in DNA . . . what uses do you postulate that they serve? What do you see as the major discoveries along those lines in the next 10 years?
And, do you agree that we’ve been able to clone humans for some 30 odd years?
Should we deny Okazaki’s fragments role in DNA replication because Osazaki was a Shinto Buddhist?
Code in DNA is that a specific codon specifies a specific amino acid in a functional protein. There is also a epigenetic ‘code’ (I prefer pattern because it is not a code in the same sense that it can be translated using a key) of DNA methylation that interacts with the proteins that package DNA to turn on or shut down gene expression. The only other thing I think you might be talking about is that some 3% of the genome is evolutionarily conserved like genes are between related lineages, but are clearly not genes and were formerly referred to as “junk” (like the junk you have up in the attic not garbage that you kick to the curb; and usually introduced WITH the scare quotes) have been assigned a putative function, and some might make RNA transcripts that perform a function.
All of this is exciting and fun stuff. All of it contradicted the ‘Dogma’ that all DNA did was code for proteins, and that the coding/amino acid pairing was the only thing there; in as much as anyone ever put forth the Dogmatic belief that there was nothing else to it (I have yet to find a Scientist who would or did make such a stand).