Not, it isn’t just terminology. Kurzweil’s observation about the role of DNA is overly simplistic, that it can be read like a technical specification and a functioning, thinking brain assembled atom by atom.
Biological development is inherently complex and non-linear. DNA is a bootstrapping network where each stage of the biological systems it governs provide feedback. Read anything that discusses how fetal development progresses. You cannot just start with DNA and skip to the end of an infant organism. Each intermediate step is contingent on the effects in the womb and within the fetus itself wrought by preceding developmental steps. The environment of the womb and the prenatal organism are the media through which DNA and living matter communicate with each other . That communication is critical to how DNA works and life develops, it cannot be omitted as far as we know to get from DNA to life.
As I said, the blueprint is more for the process, not the end result. Big difference. And blueprint is a pretty poor choice of term as the process it governs is highly contingent and emergently complex. A blueprint is static, DNA is made up of both regulatory genes that active and suppress depending on circumstance and those genes which encode for phenotypic expression, that is observable traits.
I cannot recommend PZ Myers’ take on this highly enough. He has a strong background in the relevant field and makes a much more detailed but still coherent and accessible argument.