If an object isn't distinguishable from others, no test will tell them apart, with or without a random component. This has nothing to do with your original statement.
"having no specific pattern or purpose."
Again partly false. I often generate "random" objects with various purposes in mind: cryptography, un-biased selection, etc. The phrase "specific pattern" isn't well defined; any given pattern will occur with probability one in a random environment.
That is why we need a universe the is suffused with design. Without it we could not make meaningful observations.
This has nothing to do with your original statement.
Not try to be obtuse here (it comes naturally), but which original statement?
I often generate "random" objects with various purposes in mind . . .
It does not surprise me in the least that human intelligence can make use of randomness as a tool, but your focus once again is on the subject of observation (namely yourself), and not the object. Without form or design in the object you are observing, namely the universe, you would have nothing to comprehend.
Okay. I think I know the statement you are referring to, where I said, "Randomness does not facilitate distinguishability between objects."
Well, It had never occured to me - at least not in any pointed way - that randomness can serve as a tool on the part of the observer. If so, I can only conclude that randomness can also be applied in the interest of itelligence and design. Apparently the use of randomness is an integral part of your vocation, and so I did not word my statement to accomodate that possibility.
Hopefully the ensuing comments make clear that I was referring to randomness as it applies to the object of observation.