um... let me think... No. Just because something is part of a whole does not invoke purpose.
Functionality insists that, if you remove an item from the whole it in some way detracts from that whole. If you remove a cog from a watch, the watch may cease to function; therefore, we know the cog has a function.
Likewise, we know that if we remove a finger from a body, the body's functions become impaired, albeit slightly. This denotes that the finger has a function.
Intelligent design infers function toward a purpose, and insists that all parts of the whole further the totality of its purpose. The cogs of a watch all function toward the purpose of measuring the movement of time. The primary organs of the body all function toward the necessary processes to sustain life, reproduce, etc.
Artistic design infers function towards an aesthetic purpose, in which the parts may or may not function towards the whole, but are stylistically or artistically a part of the whole - like the engraving of a watch case or the painting of a structure. However, aesthetic purpose fails with regards to organic life - although some life is beautiful, in no case is the aesthetic appearance of life completely aesthetic. Human skin tones differ in the ammount of present pigmentation, which is all part of the function of protection of the organism from harmful effects of sunlight. Beautiful plumage on birds attracts mates. Spots on butterflies' wings ward off predators. Every ounce of beauty in nature is geared toward purpose... and, of course, beauty is purely a subjective term applied by the human observer.
Some may choose to see intelligence applied behind the design and function of life-forms... yet I wonder at this concept because there are parts of the whole which serve no purpose whatsoever. The vestigial organs of the human body serve no purpose and can be removed without concern. Nor do they serve aesthetic purpose. They are a result of natural process, not intelligent or artistic design.
What purpose the bones in the fins of a whale, bones which resemble the bones of feet and fingers? Fish lack this structure design, and it serves no identifiable or reasonable purpose, neither functionally nor aesthetically, for the whale - or for any creature in contact with the whale.
What purpose the stinger of some bees, which when employed costs the life of the bee? If one cries intelligent design, one must be deeply concerned about a designer who creates self-destructive and suicidal life forms.
What purpose those tiny worms that attach to the eyelashes and do absolutely nothing? They cannot be seen, save by our advanced technology, cannot be sensed in any way, and are utterly without function. We neither need them nor notice them nor their lack... therefore, they serve no function or purpose.
This all serves to show that overall design, universal design, is sorely lacking with regard to life. But what about the rest of the universe?
Well, the very fact that most of the universe cannot support life infers that life is not the primary function of the universe. If so, what is the function of the universe? Based on analysis of its parts, there IS no function involved. Stars, nebulae, planets, clouds, all exist for no apparent reason. Sure, we can speculate a CAUSE for these events, but these are themselves phenomenae without function, without purpose. The universe does nothing well, or even adequately, except exists.
Your argument is a logical farce... that intelligent design can be inferred by wholeness. But what is wholeness? This is a complete absurdity. You're saying, "Look, everything is here, so someone must have designed it all." That's utter nonsense, and I doubt anyone over the age of 10 would buy it.
In fact, my son (who is 5) laughed outright. His answer was, "But if someone designed it all, they got it all wrong.. That's not too intelligent, Daddy."
There's not even a sensible means of refuting this gibberish, because we would never know if something was missing from the universe.. IN fact, your definition is so all-inclusive as to be meaningless as well.
I could just as well say that the parts of the Universe serve to make up its wholeness, so the Universe must be a machine. Well, it's just as nonsensical, and just as ridiculous.
No, Iacchus, once again, this is wishful thinking from the Deist crowd. The whole lacks design. The whole lacks common sense. The whole lacks function. The whole lacks pattern.
Thank you, good night.
