If you don't mind me asking, what is your source for this definition?
Real engineers don’t believe in accidents.
I did not say I believe in accidents...
Me. Sort of obvious, isn't it? If you were the best designer in existence, wouldn't you build your system to accommodate new environments, new situations? In the work we do, isn't obsolescence just behind us all the time as new technologies, new situations emerge?
None of what is around you could occur on its own - and certainly not become steadily more sophisticated, more able just by random mutations.
That's where I part company with the atheists/agnostics that claim to know science. They aren't engineers: they have never had to lay out specifications and put together design objectives, form the team, do the preliminary designs, review and test and go final and actually build and test something new and worthwhile. There's no feeling in the world like seeing your design on the screen and there in front of you, working as you'd hoped. Now imagine that you are a good enough designer that your system has a built-in capability to adapt or be adapted in the process of its work.
People like us never believe in random chance or accidents or flukes - except when things go wrong. Never when things go right because we know that success takes planning and continuous supervision.
This universe is astounding and every new thing we learn about it stuns us. It should - and it should also convince us that nothing this well put together could ever be an accident.