It's not an analogy as much as the completion of a possible pattern. But if you'd like to call it an analogy, how is it a weak one? Wouldn't you have to beg the question to regard our comparison to ants as "very flawed"? The point of the article is that we can't know whether the analogy is strong or weak. That's the allure of supernatural pseudo-explanations.

And if you have a problem with all analogies, it's going to be hard for you to avoid hypocrisy since our ordinary concepts are full of metaphors.