I can't tell if you're joking or not, but just to be clear: traditional genetics' utility for explaining natural variation among individuals represents an enormous increase in scientific understanding, and is supported by tens of thousands of scientific papers and countless benefits to society.
It's somewhat absurd to compare the credibility of genetics as a field to what is still almost entirely conjecture.
I never said genetics as a whole is not credible, it's the random part that I think is off, just to clarify.
From our brief history of mankind, I don't think there's enough information and hard fact to either prove or refute the random factor, as far as I know it is just accepted. I could also be wrong since I'm not all that up to date in this matter.
The mechanisms of traditional genetics, which include (at a simplified level) random variation at the base-pair level, are extremely well understood.
The impact of this potential new mechanism of inheritance is unknown, but it will only add to our current understanding of how things work. It will not tear down our understanding.
It's somewhat absurd to compare the credibility of genetics as a field to what is still almost entirely conjecture.