&gt; They’re essentially very tiny, very specialized atomic robots engineered by nature.<p>This is a tantalizing interpretation, but overall not helpful.<p>Terms like &quot;machine&quot; and &quot;robot&quot; bring with them a concept of design and order, which doesn&#x27;t reflect the sheer randomness that dominates that level of physics. Compare this caption from the essay:<p>&gt; Kinesin, gracefully strolling across a microtubule<p>which this molecular dynamics simulation of part of the same step - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=JckOUrl3aes" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=JckOUrl3aes</a><p>The title of that MD video is &quot;Molecular Motor Kinesin Walks Like a Drunk Man&quot; and in the description &quot;Although many previous cartoons depict kinesin step as unidirectional and deterministic, hundreds of month-long computer simulations based on the law of physics show that kinesin undergoes bidirectional and stochastic thermal motion while stepping on the polar track microtubule.&quot;<p>That gives a very different feel about what&#x27;s going on!<p>There are at least two other problems with using the &#x27;atomic robot&#x27; metaphor. We know how to design robots, and for at least 25 years there&#x27;s been the optimism that we could reuse that knowledge to design molecular robots. For example, Autodesk, the CAD company, looked into the idea in the early 1990s (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fourmilab.ch&#x2F;autofile&#x2F;www&#x2F;chapter2_82.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fourmilab.ch&#x2F;autofile&#x2F;www&#x2F;chapter2_82.html</a> ), and in the late 1990s there was the nanotech hype of designing all sorts of things in rigid-like diamond, rather than soft, flexible proteins. The robot metaphor really doesn&#x27;t transfer over that well.<p>We also see creationists use the &quot;robot&quot; analogy to argue that since robots are designed by an intelligence, and proteins are robots, then proteins are designed by intelligence.