The obvious answer is that in the first case the correlation is entirely unscientific, whereas, having discovered the genetic code, scientists are in a position to establish relevant resemblances to a programming environment, triggering predictions about our future ability to rewrite the biological sequences by means of computers. Much hard work has to go into mutual fine-tuning of the disciplines involved. Scientific claims are empty if they cannot be verified in an overarching, operative framework. This must be determined within some common, second-level structure. And here we are on familiar terrain.
Associations of ideas begin to flow.
Both types of modules combine to form a powerful cybernetico-biological entity, the result of fusing computer science and genetic intervention. Including modes of intelligence into the exercise we get an even more encompassing construct, cyberbiology crossbred with self-corrective development of cognitive systems up to and including human culture. Before committing myself, I want to take a closer look at the argumentative procedure underlying this trans-disciplinary approach. It is suggested that science can establish significant correlations between source code, proteins and intentional attitudes. If it is part of the scientific endeavour it has to conform to some set of testable methodological constructions, similar to the ones I started with.