Can God be seen in the maths?

[The Grand Nudger]

.  People who say "dna is like a computer program" have that comparison entirely backwards.  It's not even a very apt comparison, since dna isn't so much a computer program as it is a machine language.  

No.
You are falling into a trap.
DNA is not a set of instructions or code.
It is a chemical.

Right, just like a machine language isn't a set of instructions or a code.  Just a description of the operation of a system.  If we had chemical computers chemicals would -be- the machine language.  A trap with no snare is hardly a trap.

The DNA "code" is the description of a (very large and complex) molecule.

Just like a machine language in computation is a description of a very large and complex array of circuits.  

If you start to say that it is machine code (which is a form of programming language) then you open yourself to the question "who wrote the code?".
DNA is a molecule and everything that happens with it is chemistry.

Machine language is used to -make- programming languages (that's why a program is classified as higher order coding, as instruction), but it exists beneath and independent of them. All machines have a machine language, even ones which can't be programmed.  A simple lever is either on or off, up or down, rising or falling, heavier on one side or the other...so too..is the most complicated circuit.  The machine language is simply how we describe that state or set of states. A comparison between dna and machine language works, whereas a comparison between dna and a program doesn;t...and., again, has the whole thing backwards. It;s -because- of machine language and the constraints of natural law on the possible states of a machine that the higher order programming works..and it;s because of those same laws that DNA works and can be leveraged, itself..to create higher level programming like behaviors. Still, the whole thing is a useless point of personal interest..since machine languages, programming languages, and computers as a whole (biological or mechanical) can and do emerge in the absence of design or a designer. All that is required for any of it to exist and work are natural laws amenable to information processing, and materials capable of leveraging those laws. Both of which obviously exist, regardless of whether or not some god does.

That's the amusing part, for me. Even if there were a god, it demonstrably isn;t required to play a part in the existence of anything referenced in support of -it's- existence..in this regard. As always, god is a useless addition. Not only is the inference flawed, and the propositions factually incorrect...it wouldn't matter if the conclusion were accurate. That's about the shittiest place that any argument for anything can be in. There;s literally no other way to fuck it up, it;s as fucked up as it can possibly be, lol.