The problem is the politics in science, certain people having unrational bias who are in power making the rules.
Bias is not inherently bad. The biases of the scientific community, which are not irrational as you infer, are useful and constructive, including the bias to keep pseudoscience out of the scientific literature. The incredible success of science is the evidence that its biases such as the requirement that claims be supported with physical evidence are appropriate.
By contrast, pseudoscience, which has no exclusionary biases and accepts virtually any idea such as astrology and its assumption that the positions of heavenly bodies predict or control lives, is sterile. The biases of science exclude that kind of thinking.
The ID movement has been sterile as well, failing to find any aspect of nature that is better understood by positing an intelligent designer as its explanation.
Oh so you think because newton died before darwin he would not believe in God if he died after darwin?
"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" - Richard Dawkins
Newton might be a theist if he lived today, but he wouldn't come to that position using reason or the scientific method. It would likely be for the same reason that educated people are theists today - they were raised in it and find it more comfortable and socially acceptable in their family and social setting to acquiesce than to be rigorously logical.
give respect to ID scientists that do real science
Some ID luminaries have contributed to papers that have been deemed good science and that have been published in respected peer-reviewed journals, but they are doing science at those times unrelated to intelligent design, not pseudoscience. The methods are different, as is the quality and reliability of the output.
So how does the current info tell us that intelligence is not "required" to originate DNA?
It doesn't. It also does not tell us that intelligence IS required for DNA to form and evolve.
DNA exists, and we assume that it first arose either naturalistically or by intelligent design. Both hypothesis are possible. Neither can be ruled in or ruled out. One, however, the naturalistic hypothesis, is far more parsimonious for not requiring the existence of a god or gods. Perhaps you think that DNA is too unlikely to exist undesigned, but if so, you're trying to get around that problem by positing a god. Can you think of anything less likely to exist undesigned than a god? I can't.
All our experience tells us instructions come from intelligence.
That depends what you are calling an instruction. Verbal instructions, yes, but not physical ones, such as a rock dropped in a gravitational field falling toward the center of mass..There is no evidence that the instruction to fall comes from an intelligent source.
Nothing is instructing DNA to do what it is doing beyond blind physical forces analogous to the force of gravity acting on the falling rock that determine which strands of bases will be read and transcribed. It all just matter doing what it does naturally.
Adenine is "instructed" to bond with thymidine only because of the shapes of the two molecules and the distribution and type of charge on the molecules. Various codons are associated with various amino acids in the ribosome not due to a linguistic code, but due to the laws of physics.