By DNA, are you referring to DNA as its biochemical structure? Or rather, the science of genomics?
Because if we pooled every super-computer and ran it until the end of time, we still would not be able to completely and precisely sequence the entire genome of a single human-being, due to the hyper-randomness, unexpected-repetitivity, and ambiguity of genomics & epigenomics.
Most human genetic sequencing has been exon-centered (which constitute around ~1-2% of our DNA) while the rest of DNA is scrapped as "junk DNA", due to a combination of us either not devising ways to get them to be transcribed in the lab, or the fact that DNA does not need to be transcribed into an mRNA or protein molecule in order to be biochemically active. We can only sequence DNA (via shotgun-sequencing) via 500 base-pair reads at a time, despite the fact that some DNA strands can be tandem-repeats over tens-of-thousands of base pairs. I'm sure you could comprehend the mathematical nightmare that this would entail, as the computers would need to handle n^x calculations just to entertain every possibility of every read used to sequence the single genome.
Consequently, we tend to identify only 2% of the DNA, and only the ones that are short, and non-repetitive enough (while undertaking massive mathematical assumptions) due to the complexity of an organism's genome.
The paper mentioned in this article appraised 80% of human DNA as biochemically active, and it was published in
Nature:
https://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/junk_no_more_en_1064001.html.
So to answer your question: perhaps it is ordered quite definitely, however we are no-where near understand Genomics completely, much like we are no where near using mathematics to properly-modelling the disorder of the universe.
