Other differences between message passing and function calls aside, I disagree with this characterization. While many mainstream languages perform static binding of functions, it is not an inherent feature of functions (at least as I personally have come to understand them); the canonical example is Common Lisp's generic functions, which behave in almost exactly the way you describe message passing.

I think no small part of the disagreements in this thread can be attributed to people simply having different notions of what phrases like "function call" mean, with some envisioning invoking a statically resolved, monotyped C-style subroutine, and others a more abstract notion of issuing a command to perform a computation with an understood set of semantics on a provided collection of data. The latter is what I think of a function as in a computational context, and from what I've gathered from the other comments here, a fair approximation of what is typically meant by "message passing."

Now, there's something to be said for differences like the treatment of synchronization and process boundaries, but I'm inclined to categorize those as the same sort of pragmatic-but-technically-untrue distinctions as that between so-called "compiled languages" and "interpreted languages." Certainly there is at the very least an isomorphism to be established between the two conventions, given access to threads, promises, and some form of IPC.