So the grammar rules are "about what 2-year-olds learn on their own by listening to adults speak". Doesn't that two year old require some intelligence to absorb an understanding of such rules? Don't the adults the two year old is around have to have intelligence to speak normally for those rules to get picked up? Yet here we have some bacteria with no innate intelligence conforming to a set of 'grammatical rules'. Doesn't prove anything either way, but I'd say there is good reason for ID'ers to find this interesting.
the mistake here is that the 'grammar rules' discussed are learned rules. They are not. The authors have discovered new chemistry rules with respect to peptide based antibiotics and 'grammar' is an analogy used to explain these rules to lay people. The intelligence to absorb and understand these rules is our own, not that of the bacteria nor that of the polypeptides involved. At that level, it's just chemicals doing what they do.