So stating that a particular molecular machine appears to be engineered is now a theological argument?
Moreover I am saying that as theological arguments go it is a rather shoddy one in that it posits a rank incompetent as God who needs to constantly tinker with his work to get it to go right,
So you presume to know exactly what God's goal was, His chosen methodologies, and other external factors involved in His work that are not directly observable. Maybe you presume that if you had God's resources that you could make a better universe?
They think any novel or complex biological mechanism must be “irreducibly complex”; even though their flagship structure of “irreducible complexity” was found to be completely reducible to a type II secretory system.
I will agree that there is no possible structure that cannot be speculated to have come about given a complex enough "just-so" story. There is, however, a limit to credulity except in the face of an unshakable ideologue.
Unshakable ideology is the only thing creationism has going for it.
Saying that natural processes are insufficient to explain natural phenomenon and invoking the actions of supernatural agency is a theological rather than a scientific argument.
Saying that something is “irreducibly complex” and then finding that the component parts are used elsewhere for other functions makes one look like quite a loser. And those that look to that loser as a sage are even lower on the loser scale.