The syllogism I have used for ID, was never meant to be used as a creationist argument, but only as a way to ASCERTAIN if an object or thing, is designed;
If something has the elements of design it is designed. (X is X, Law of identity) Life has the elements of design Therefore life is designed.
Now I am not arguing this argument here and now, I know you don't accept it, but can you accept the conclusion only says whether something is designed? It is not meant to say who or what the designer is, and has nothing to do with who or what the designer is.
Then that is not an argument for ID, because you haven't reached a conclusion that the designer is intelligent.
Are ID/creationists arguing that proteins are designed because they look like wedges?
I wouldn't doubt it, but does it matter what they call the machine?
It doesn't change the validity of the argument if, rather than being a wedge, the machine is something more sophisticated like a pump.
Quibbling over whether or not it really does superficially look like a machine seems like the wrong approach. Especially given that being a "machine" can be something as simple as having a triangular shape.