[Zero Sum]

We all admit that things in nature at least sometimes don't work as the should, and in fact often go horribly wrong, as in the case of infant cancer.

We do? So now you're saying that nature is teleological? Saying that "things in nature at least sometimes don't work as the[y] should, and in fact often go horribly wrong" assumes that there is a purpose to the way that things work, i.e. it assumes teleology.

In post 92 you wrote:

You can't just glibly speak about "cancer causing chemicals" and "disease" as if those are neutral things.

But without a teleological framework, that's exactly what they are: They're just things that happen, and there is no question of anything "going wrong".

To be clear, I am not trying to prove to you that nature is teleological. However, it seems that you already (tacitly) believe that it is.

[count-your-change]

“We all admit that things in nature at least sometimes don’t work as the should, and in fact often go horribly wrong, as in the case of infant cancer.”

Indeed this comment points to purpose in useing terms like should and wrong. Atheistic philosophy admits of no purpose, no direction, no right and wrong, just that the universe is.

Of corse I can talk about cancer causing cheicals and disease in a neutral way since those chemicals are only cancer causing under a given circumstance and likewise organisims that cause disease.

[Two Ravens]

We do? So now you're saying that nature is teleological? Saying that "things in nature at least sometimes don't work as the[y] should, and in fact often go horribly wrong" assumes that there is a purpose to the way that things work, i.e. it assumes teleology.

Go back and read my last few posts, and you'll see that I've allowed for the possibility that one could conclude the existence of an inept or insane (or evil) designer(s) based upon purely naturalistic evidence.