I was wondering how long you'd wait for the opportunity to interject that? By intentional manufacturing, you said "things like mold lines, tool marks, highly refined or synthetic materials, etc." God tells us He made man in His own image... that's like molding isn't it? I don't think God really had to use tools.
No, He used natural processes for the most part.
I don't know, the flagellum alone appears pretty highly refined to me.
So it does. The question is, how was that functional complexity produced? IDists, of course, think that God (excuse me, "the Designer") had to step in and tinker with the genetics to make it work. For my part, I am satisfied that the information processing capacity represented by the interlocking stochastic processes which make up the biosphere is sufficient for the task.
Let me remind you of what I said before: the presence of design in an object is unfalsifiable. It sometimes can be inferred from the presence of evidence of intentional manufacture--as we have been discussing, But because it is unfalsifiable, the presence of design cannot be ruled out empirically, even when no evidence is present from which it might be inferred.
You and I believe that God is author of the universe. In some sense we believe that the universe is "designed" by God. Nothing that science has concluded about it, nothing that science can conclude about it, can falsify our belief. The theory of evolution does not falsify it, does not even attempt to do so.
But likewise, you cannot "prove" the presence of design in natural objects by appealing to their functional complexity. Functional complexity is, in itself, not evidence of design.