The word a scientist uses to describe DNA is not probative.
DNA does not fit the definition of a code:
a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message: Morse code.
a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings.
any set of standards set forth and enforced by a local government agency for the protection of public safety, health, etc., as in the structural safety of buildings (building code) health requirements for plumbing, ventilation, etc. (sanitary or health code) and the specifications for fire escapes or exits (fire code)
a systematically arranged collection or compendium of laws, rules, or regulations.
any authoritative, general, systematic, and written statement of the legal rules and principles applicable in a given legal order to one or more broad areas of life.
The first definition is closest, but there's no communication channel.
do you really not understand that the code embedded in the DNA is the instructions for building the cell?
Absolutely nobody understands that except the gullible and ignorant. DNA does not contain a sequence of instructions as in a procedural computer language, nor does it contain a description of the desired result as in a non-procedural computer language. DNA is not analogous to computer code of any kind.
At her blog Elizabeth Liddle posted a fascinating series on why it's impossible to calculate CSI per any of Dembski's various methods. The bottom line is, of course, that there's no way to enumerate and account for "all relevant chance hypotheses". But it's interesting to see the formalism and discussion of how Dembski fails so spectacularly.