Now while this may not be in biological terms it is still relevant.
No it is not. The point is that cars don't f**k. To be more detailed and more polite: cars are not produced through a reproductive process that involves imperfect replication and selection. Any analogy that picks something that doesn't have that kind of reproductive process isn't relevant in any way.
Until we found the concept of evolutionary processes we didn't have a good answer for what appeared to be design. However, we now have a completely natural process that can account for outcomes which appear to be designed. It is now longer possible to assume an appearance of design means it had to be purposefully designed.
In addition, we can, generally tell the difference between things which are actually designed with a purpose and things which have arisen from the evolutionary process. The difference is the level of "messyness" in the outcome. Living things exhibit this "messyness". Human designed things (with the possible
exception of old software) do not. Living things are to use a techie term, "kludges".
It seems that once you have selected imperfect replicators it isn't a matter of forcing evolution to take place; it is dammed difficult to have anything else happen.
Your analogy ignores the issue of breeding, selected imperfect replicators. It is therefore entirely irrelevant.
Did you see the guy that made your car? Like the rest of us probably not. But I'll put a million dollars down that you believe that somebody did in fact build your car. You believe it even though you did not see it
But I have ample evidence that someone did. I've been in an assembly plant. I've seen TV interviews with designers. I believe it was a human. I can touch a human most any day. I know that they have capabilities that allow for the possibility of them designing a car. I have the overblown-ego idea that it would be possible for me.
A car (as noted above) exhibits the kind of design that I expect a reasonably competant human to do. (e.g., the design is not too much more complex than needed, it doesn't have parts that are no longer needed, some parts are a total disconnect from previous cars with no conceivable step wise path to them (DVD navigation) ) In living things I do not see this kind of design at all. I see a connection between
all living things unlike the lack of connection between my toaster and car.
If your a materialist then no, if your a creationist yes. I see God's hand in biology every day. It's simply a matter of philosophy
And if you see God's hand you see one that doesn't design using the kind of design approaches that humans use at all. What you do see is exactly the kind of designs that the evolutionary process produces. The only reasonably conclusion is that, while you may believe God is the designer (and I have a limited amount of argument with that), you have to conclude that the method He used to do that design was the evolutionary process.