As we know, still majority of evolutionists believe in an RNA world hypothesis.
I wouldn't go as far as 'believe in' but, yes, most relevant scientists consider RNA world a probable step in the origin of life.
However, I have a problem in imbibing this theory. Nucleic acids are the information storage system of life.
Here, I'm afraid, you've fallen for the mistake of thinking that the simplified version presented to school children is the reality. The description of DNA as a "storage system" is poor enough, but for RNA it's simply wrong.
DNA is, in a sense, structurally boring. For the most part, it forms double strands that twist into helices. These helices are largely chemically uninteresting. There are no known occurrences of DNA acting enzymatically, and it's hard to think that it could do so. RNA is different, being single stranded it is free to twist into complex three-dimensional shapes. These three dimensional shapes are diverse enough to act as enzymes (biological catalysts) for a wide range of biologically important reactions. We know this to be the case because key roles in modern cells are still carried out by RNA enzymes (aka 'ribozymes').
This is why scientists think RNA world is so compelling an idea. In RNA world there is no dichotomy between "storage" and "enzyme" molecules; the two are one and the same: RNA. RNA shares the relative ease of copying that DNA has but combines it with much of the enzymatic capability of proteins.
Properly understood then, RNA world explains the objection you've raised.