First: Any article that uses the words "evolutionist" or "Darwinian" when referring to a person is automatically putting itself several hundred logic points in the hole.
It is an ad hominem argument, a form of logical fallacy in which one attacks the proponent of an argument, rather than the argument itself. The fact that the labels are also inaccurate merely adds to the lack of credibility.
As the 'arguments' themselves:
The fact that DNA replicates relatively error free is not necessarily indicative of intelligent design. The structure and method of replication of the molecule provides this feature by its very nature. How often can you zip and unzip your zipper without error? If you press your finger into soft clay, how many perfect replications of your fingerprints can you make? There's nothing magical about this ability, or anything that requires intelligence to drive it.
As for the 'quality' of the information in bacteria. The article is incorrect. Many bacteria and viruses only use RNA, which is less efficient than DNA, and more prone to coding errors. In fact, it provides a good transitional form for the formation of DNA as the primary genetic inheritance molecule.
So, basically, the article is logically flawed, and factually incorrect.
Other than that, I suppose it's OK.