"Dna is a code and therefore could not be random."

You're right about the randomness factor, but you are mistaking the ingredients for the recipe. It's a common mistake with this topic, but a very important distinction to make.

If you take specific ingredients and cook them in a specific way for a specific amount of time you get specific results. Those results will be basically the same whether you use a recipe or not. The results aren't guided by intelligence, but the recipes used to duplicate them are.

The same goes for DNA. We assigned the labels of A,T,C,G to represent different molecules. All molecules have specific attributes and ways of affecting other molecules that are determined by the laws of chemistry and physics. This establishes a chain of events that goes through a long and winding path between DNA and expressed traits. It is complex and astonishing, but complex and astonishing occurrences are not proof of intelligence. Our ability to make sense of it is. We were the ones who made the recipe, we put the word "code" in genetic code.

The path from DNA to trait is not random at all, it is the result of a vast number of contributing factors creating the final shape.

Now let's say that a geneticist who happens to be adept at cryptography discovered that a specific strand of DNA represented a mathematical equation that predicted how many hours that the person who bore the code would live. And after testing numerous people, they all died exactly when the code predicted they would, regardless of it was natural causes, murder or what-have-you. Then the ingredients would be the recipe. That would be proof of intelligent design. I know the standards sound high, but an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. And in a world where all observable things have limits, a being that has no limits is as extraordinary as it gets.

No. In our daily lives, a major factor in making decisions (especially important ones) is our ability to analyze the available evidence and make (or change) our minds accordingly. This is the very skill that, for better or worse, allows us to dominate the food chain and manipulate our world more thoroughly than any other organism. It is also the skill that allows us to recognize and correct the many mistakes we tend to make. Faith, at least blind faith, runs counter to that skill. If our soul's final destination is of such grave importance, it does not seem benevolent to require us to rely on faith to understand the consequences of our actions. It would be benevolent to make Heaven and Hell places that we all could see, touch and experience before they become a part of our eternal reality. Regardless of whether Hell is place where you go for misdeeds or a place you "choose" by failure to love/accept God/Jesus, it seems anything but benevolent to make the consequences of our decision (to say nothing of our reasons for forming that decision) contingent on a concept (faith) that runs counter to our ability to make informed decisions. It seems more likely to be a political ploy by the very human creators of religion to manipulate the actions of the superstitious.