@puzzledperson,
The point the biologist was making was fairly simple. Let's say you think you have discovered the "gene" which results in blue eyes. Let's say that gene is associated with a particular molecule. Talking loosely and figuratively people will say the "gene" causes blue eyes. They do this while associating the gene with a molecule. They start thinking that the molecule causes blue eyes.
It doesn't. The molecule, as such, causes NOTHING. It is the information carried by the molecule which causes blue eyes, not the molecule itself. But people confuse themselves by failing to make the distinction.
One more time: What "causes" blue eyes is the information, not the molecule. It is a mistake to say or think that the molecule is the information. It is merely the messenger which carries the information, not the information itself.
If you want to call the "cause" of blue eyes, the "gene," then you are calling the information the gene, NOT the molecule.