Biologists frequently describe cellular structures as motors, machines, pumps, transport systems, and information-processing systems. But critics of design can reasonably point out that this language describes how these systems function. It does not establish how they originated.
A molecular motor is not literally a miniature human-built electric motor. Mechanical language can be scientifically useful without implying an engineer.
If the design argument depends simply upon calling biological structures machines, it risks turning an analogy into a conclusion. Similar terminology does not necessarily mean similar origins.
This objection is correct as far as it goes. The word "machine" is not evidence of design by itself. The important features are the actual organization being described: interacting components, energy conversion, controlled movement, information processing, assembly, regulation, and coordinated function.
The design question therefore concerns the origin of that functional organization, not the vocabulary scientists use to describe it.
Which characteristics of molecular machinery, if any, provide evidence about origin rather than merely describing present function?