On the contrary, this illustrates your lack of understanding. The reason that it is important how a program or life form came into being is because that answers our central questions to this very debate.
Was Life "created" by some intelligent entity or did Life self-form? When answering that question, one NEEDS to see how other mechanisms that store data, process data, and replicate data (e.g. computer programs) came into being.
Once we accept that computer programs are designed and built via Intelligent Intervention rather than natural selection, we can begin to grasp that it isn't the programs that are evolving per se, but rather that the designers of computer programs are evolving and improving their creations.
It's a pity that you can't move such facts into your side of this debate...
All you have is evidence that computer programs are made by men. That is evidence of absolutely nothing with respect to biological evolution. You are violating the rules of evidence and the rules of logic with absolute unconcern for the absurdity of your position.
"That's a recurring theme in our debate: I can always produce evidence of intelligent intervention, but you can never produce evidence of natural processes creating similar levels of order from chaos." -- Southack
Every living thing is an example of natural processes that lead to more ordered states from less ordered states.
The chaos exists largely in your imagination. Take an object in your hand, hold it out, let it drop. Does it drop straight toward the center of the earth, stay where it is, or shoot off in some unpredictable direction? I'll bet you everything you've got that it obeys the law of gravity. There are many such laws of nature and they must be obeyed. Some of those laws pertain to the way that molecules react. There is no mystery here.
"It's a pity that you can't move such facts into your side of this debate..." -- Southack
Your "facts" are not on either side of this debate. They are entirely irrelevant. Computer programming has nothing to do with biology. The tenuous similarity between codes is an artifact. It means exactly nothing. There is no conclusion about nature to be derived from the recognition that computer codes contain information. Why do you dwell on computer codes? Human language of any kind is an equally applicable example. And, of course, as already stated, languages evolve by a natural process largely dependent on exchange, replication and selection. Nobody designed any spoken language (Esperanto and Modern Hebrew notwithstanding).
"Was Life "created" by some intelligent entity or did Life self-form? When answering that question, one NEEDS to see how other mechanisms that store data, process data, and replicate data (e.g. computer programs) came into being." -- Southack
We don't NEED to see those things because we did them ourselves and already know exactly how they came to be. Again, there is no lesson to be learned about nature by studying computer programming. Rather, the opposite is true -- study nature if you wish to know about nature and then, as man has always done, apply what you have learned to the art of programming. Going the way you suggest is completely without merit and will lead to no improvement in either the understanding of nature or the ability to program a computer.
I might also suggest that you examine the role of the imagination with respect to the act of programming computers. Intellect and imagination complement one another in the role of creative construction. The imagination functions by sorting and combining unrelated bits of information to produce novel associations. This is a random process and we often select the results based not on their logical merits but because they appeal to our emotions. Try examining the role of various parts of the brain and neuroendocrine system in the selection process. Don't ignore either the reptilian hindbrain or the cerebral cortex. Finally recognize that your devotion to the concept of an Intelligent Designer is not a function of any intellectual persuasion but rather a long held childhood belief that comforts you emotionally. Admitting that will allow you to hold the opinion without any concern for the necessity of justifying it intellectually. You will be much happier for it.