No, I'm actually a technical expert on digital logic and can easily recognize unscientific obfuscations on this subject when I see them.
Human computer software programming is entirely analogous to genetic DNA coding. It's a fact. It's backed by numerous supporting elements, too.
For instance, DNA stores data, processes data, and replicates itself. Likewise, human computer programming stores data, processes data, and replicates itself.
Nothing else in the universe does that. That makes for a pretty rarified association (and hence, analogy).
When DNA is processing data or code, external environmental variables/inputs affect the final output. Likewise, when human computer programs are processing data or code, external environmental variables/inputs affect the final output.
Genetic DNA code has subroutines known as "genes" that we see re-used in various species. Likewise, human computer programming code has subroutines that we see re-used in various other programs.
You would be hard-pressed to show a SINGLE behavior by either DNA or human software that isn't performed at some level by the other.
You can pretend that I'm blind, but that isn't going to improve your argument.
Contrary to your unsupportable claim, human computer programs really are analogous to genetic DNA code.
One very obvious way in which it isn't analogous is the secondary, 3^0, or 4^0 structures of DNA and the function inherent in those structures. A programmer may be able to approach this function with a string of zeros and ones but this would, necessarily be added to the software in a linear fashion. The emergent properties of phenotype come with their own laws of interaction.
A second obvious difference is the quantum nature of DNA. You compare the four bases to binary switches which is completely wrong. The chemical nature of each of the bases is not binary. A reaction between a base and it's complement on another strand or on tRNA, for example is never completely on or off. A programmer may be able to approach this phenomenon with some sort of fuzzy algorithm, but there is still something fundamentally different.
The strong analogy you make is akin to saying "We have produced LIFE on the computer" or claiming that the sequence of the human genome on the proper computer will give rise to consciousness. A sum of reductionist explanations is insufficient. Software, as yet, is a trivial reductionist analogy of only a few of the properties of DNA. Even a fully comprehensive reductionist approach is insufficient. It's like claiming that a complete Theory of Everything would give you an indication of how to play the stock market. It doesn't work like that.