Nobody is doing that. Analogies are drawing rough outlines in the thought-space[0], they aren't a definition. As such, they are helpful.
--
[0] - Or latent space, if I want to make an analogy inside the analogy apologia.
For a developer this analogy also implies a lot of assumptions that they know to be true for code that are simply wrong for biology.
If you are upset about using the word 'computational' then consider it to be a dynamical process. We can then use mathematics to analyze this system.
In any event, genes (programming instructions) encode proteins (applications) that run in the cell (operating system).
Now biology is weird and has multiple feedback steps, some of which we probably do not even know yet, but the basic approach is solid.
Of course you can model various aspects of cells mathematically. But that doesn't require any analogies to software.
At any rate digital (0,1) strings aren't that different than DNA strings (A, T, C, G) and just because we have 4 characters in the alphabet doesn't mean you can't analyze it as an abstract computational process.
You can also discretize the concentration of molecules such that above a threshold switch like behavior occurs (gene turns on or off).
Also people have done experiments where they program DNA to perform computations to solve various problems like the traveling salesman problem. This is a direct application of using biology to solve a "digital problem" https://www.nature.com/articles/news000113-10
So here we have an example of an artificial logical problem encoded into DNA and solved using biology. That means biology can simulate computational algorithms.
I think a lot of people here will equate software/programming to mathematically modeling.
Saying you can model/math it, but not use software analogies, is just really trying to split hairs, since models/math is also software.
Sorry to bite your head off, but the reason that I'm passionate about this topic is, and I'm not joking, young earth Creationism. An analogy like the grandparent is something simple to grasp by many people, and then the Creationists can quickly turn around and say, "Well you see how biology is like a computer; somebody built a computer; therefore, God created us in six days, 6000 years ago."
The fundamentals of biology are extraordinarily difficult to grasp. Not only that, the fundamentals aren't set in stone and are subject to change. The rise of epigentics being a recent example. The only people who claim the fundamentals are not to difficult to grasp are people who have a superficial and incorrect understanding of it.
> Sorry to bite your head off, but the reason that I'm passionate about this topic is, and I'm not joking, young earth Creationism
So you got triggered because you have a political agenda? It's my experience that people who know nothing argue with or feel threatened by creationists. I say this as an atheist.
> "Well you see how biology is like a computer; somebody built a computer; therefore, God created us in six days, 6000 years ago."
The biology-computation analogy has been used since the founding of computer science. Everyone from Turing to the commenter you attacked has used it. Heck, even biologists view biological systems are biological machines.
You are fundamentally no different than the creationists you argue with. I'm almost certain you know nothing about biology or computer science other than pop culture nonsense.
Also, please edit out swipes from your comments.
Both these points are in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. If you wouldn't mind reviewing those and sticking to them when posting here, we'd appreciate it.