What you are saying is not strictly true, but the point is minor enough that it doesn't really change things one way or the other.
More importantly, DNA doesn't "do" anything, merely providing a template. Building proteins off that template is an extremely biased system, and we expend a fair portion of our supercomputing power today figuring out what protein conformations are probable under certain circumstances and which aren't. The combinatorial space IS astronomically huge, and sifting through the vast quantities of chemically improbable combinations to find the small number of highly probable combinations is not trivial and won't be for a long time, running into what is essentially an expression of the Halting Problem of computational theory.
This is like saying, organisms don't "do" anything, they just propagate.
What you are saying is not strictly true, but the point is minor enough that it doesn't really change things one way or the other.
If it is not accurate, let me know how it is innacurate, don't leave me guessing. I like to be as accurate as possible.
More importantly, DNA doesn't "do" anything, merely providing a template.
That is a terrible analogy for what DNA does. Sure, DNA needs the rest of the cell to accomplish its work and even the entire organism, but to call it a template is like calling a program a bit of nonsense in a computer. Like a program without which a computer is just a piece of junk, without DNA a body would be just food for scavengers. Like a program, DNA is information, essential information for the human body, just as a program is essential information to make a computer work.
Building proteins off that template is an extremely biased system
If you mean by the above that it takes a lot of fiddling to get the protein to come out correct, you would be right, however it is DNA itself that sets out how it is to be fiddled with with stop codons, homeoboxes, specific RNA's for specific genes, sets up a control system to tell how much protein is to be produced and when, and much more. So you are totally degrading the tremendous job which DNA does in the organism.
we expend a fair portion of our supercomputing power today figuring out what protein conformations are probable under certain circumstances and which aren't.
If you are trying to make a better protein than nature or to modify it in any way you certainly will need a lot of work to accomplish it which like the rest of your post pretty much verifies what Alamo-Girl's sources have been saying - that it is virtually impossible to create a single functional gene at random. Such a miracle occurring once would be possible though extremely unlikely. However to propose that such a miracle could have occurred not just once but millions and millions of times with the numerous species we have on earth is certainly impossible.