This is most useful, I think, because it gets at the heart of the disagreement. On the other hand, some maintain the term “code” is being abused, hence …
… and all the wonderful examples @AllenWitmerMiller provided.
BUT I want to explore the idea that codons ARE a code, and this gives evidence of a Intelligent Designer.
The genetic code is evolvable. We can argue origins later, but it is clear that genomes change over time in response to environmental pressures. We can also consider that the code itself has evolved, with amino acids like tyrosine, tryptophan, selenocysteine and pyrrolysine being the more recent additions. (A source for this, but I should leave biochemistry to the biochemists).
The point being, if we really think codons are an Intelligently Designed code, then we already have strong evidence that Evolution is the Designer.
AND this is nothing new. This is a long standing criticism of ID; that nothing prevents evolution itself from being the Designer. ID is an apologetic for those who need that sort of thing to shore up their faith, and a big waste of time to those engaged in science and science education. ID has been tested scientifically, and it’s had its day in court, and most importantly, it has produced no useful results.
So if you really want to claim that codons are a “Designed” code, go ahead; this idea has no value beyond apologetics.