Humans have the ability to understand the genetics and even the randomness of the process but we still cannot know whether or not it has an intelligent root. We can't even know that there isn't intelligent intervention in the process.
As I said, arguing that this is evidence to support the anti-theist position is no different than Faith's argument for evidence for inerrancy of the Bible, or for that matter making a scientific argument for ID.
You're not wrong, but I don't think you are looking at it the right way. And this is coming from a theist.
What we have is an explanation for a phenomenon that works without having a need for a god.
While this doesn't prove that there is no god there, its still a pretty meaningful situation.
Think about it the other way: What if we could
not come up with an explanation that works that didn't require a god?
Wouldn't you take that as a indication that a god may be necessary?
If so, then why can you not go the other way and see that having an explanation that works without a god indicates that a god may not be necessary?
Of course "not being necessary" is not the same as "not being there at all", but science works by keeping only what is necessary.
It may be wrong to discount a god, but if the explanation works without it then nobody really cares.