Has Science done away with a need for God?

[Simon Moon]

DNA is not a code, or a language. It is chemsitry.

If DNA is a code or a language, so is H2O.

This is from a biologist:

DNA is not a language, in any sense, because it does not represent concepts or meanings, a language entails that abstractsrepresent concretes, such as a number 5 written on a piece of paper, which has “meaning” to an entity which can understand what “5” means. Nothing analogous is found in DNA, since it is only a substitution cipher, which represents the order of amino acids in a protein, or RNA nucleotides in an RNA molecule. There is no abstract representation or assigned meaning going on with a direct physical substitution cipher, like DNA. When a stop codon orders a ribosome to stop transcribing, the ribosome does not “understand” that it has to stop transcribing, because it is just a ribosome. Nor does the nascent polypeptide “understand” that it is being hydrolyzed. Nor do tRNA “understand” that they must bind to their respective codons on mRNA. There is no transmission of conscious understanding, no abstract communication that entails one entity interprets symbols because it has the same understanding as the entity which communicated them. In this regard, DNA is not a language by definition. All that is happening is that the stop codon does not contain the binding site for any tRNA, but it does contain the binding site for the release factors which terminates translation because it causes the nascent polypeptide to hydrolyze an ester bond as they catalyze this hydrolysis reaction and release from the subunits of the ribosome.

Arguing from authority is always thrown back at the theist, but then an atheist does the same.  What is your point?  I can cite others that hold an opposing view.  Even the atheist poster boy Richard Dawkins referring to DNA as algorithm, code and instructions:

It is raining DNA outside. On the bank of the Oxford canal at the bottom of my garden is a large willow tree, and it is pumping downy seeds into the air. ... [spreading] DNA whose coded characters spell out specific instructions for building willow trees that will shed a new generation of downy seeds. … It is raining instructions out there; it's raining programs; it's raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading, algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth. It couldn't be any plainer if it were raining floppy discs. 

— Richard Dawkins

The Blind Watchmaker (1986), 111. 

That's not an argument from authority fallacy! WOW!

An argument from authority is when the 'authority' quoted is not an authority of the subject under discussion. For example: “Well, Isaac Newton believed in Alchemy, do you think you know more than Isaac Newton?”. The fallacy is that, just because Newton was an expert in math and physics, does not make him an expert in alchemy.

Since the authority I quoted is an actual biologist, and a true authority on the subject, it is not a fallacy.

The seeds from the tree are not communicating anything. Codes communicate meaning. DNA causes chemical reactions. End of story.