No that’s the question-begging again. You are just assuming those are for a purpose.
No, natural selection demonstrably produces things that have an appearance of what you call a purposeful arrangement of parts. It produces things that appear to be for some function. Mutations that give antibiotic resistance, for example, are selected because of how they allow cells to live with high concentrations of antibiotic, giving the appearance that they are for that purpose.
So you declare, but you say nothing that substantiates it, you just quote the definition of arbitrary without explaining anything about how it relates to specific criticisms you have received.
The standards of science are constantly and explicitly brought up as a direct consequence of your abandonment or failure to understand any of them.
You constantly misunderstand what hypothesis testing is or how it works, what a testable hypothesis is, what a test is, what models are, how predictions are made, how scientific historical inference is made, how inference to the best explanation is supposed to be done.
All the time you get these wrong. You invent “models” that don’t make logical sense, such as the asinine idea that it is a prediction of ID that “a natural process can’t produce X”.
You think you can just take the statement “it was designed” to be true by default, and demand of others that they disprove it. And you think this would constitute a falsification of the statement “it was designed” to show that it could also have evolved by a natural process.
You don’t understand what a null hypothesis is and think “it was designed” is a useful null hypothesis, apparently not having the slightest clue that a null hypothesis needs to predict something.
You don’t understand that “it was designed” is not even a model or a hypothesis, since it has zero explanatory or predictive content. There is nothing in those three words that says anything about what the data should be like. Hence there is no test possible of the claim.
Most amazingly of it all (and almost impossible to believe coming from a Christian theist) is you seem to not even be able to comprehend that just because you have offered a naturalistic explanation for some phenomenon, that doesn’t actually falsify the proposition that God did it.
I can go on an on.
The great irony is that your knee-jerk “it is arbitrary” response, is actually arbitrary. It seems to be conconcted for no apparent reason, but merely as some sort of quasi-academic-sounding go-to excuse for dismissing valid criticisms of your unreasoned nonsense.
You simply have no idea whatsoever about any of this and are basically just blathering incoherently and in embarrassing ignorance every time, seemingly out of some pathological need to say something, anything, back.