In response to my last post, Sev gives us an astonishing double down:
Yes, a microscopic living cell is immensely complex when you look at it closely but comparing one to a factory based on some similarities in the internal processes is an analogy not necessarily evidence of design. To judge the value of an analogy you should also consider the differences. For example, a human factory is vastly larger than a living cell. It’s also made of refined metals, plastics and glass which you don’t find in the cell. Judged by those attributes of known design, the cell is not designed.
OK, lets consider the differences that you point out.
1. Cells are smaller than factories. Sev, you didn’t think this one through. Think of the original computers. They were the size of a room and less powerful than today’s handheld smart phone. So which is the more sophisticated design, UNIVAC or my Galaxy Edge 7? The inference from miniaturization goes in the opposite direction you seem to think it does. Even the simplest cell is a marvel of nano-technology. The “nano” part of that phrase increases the confidence we can have in the design inference.
2. Cells are made from different materials. So? Mount Rushmore is a designed object that uses stone as a material. The computer I am typing this on is a designed object made of metal, plastic and silicon. The messages Craig Venter encoded in DNA were designed objects using DNA as the medium. The design inference is based on an analysis of whether the object is characterized by specified complexity, not the material of which it is made.