[Two Ravens]

One could conclude that the infant was exposed to cancer causing chemicals or radiation or disease but conclusions are not the same as proof and so the infant cancer thing is pretty much a nonstarter for evidence of anything.

Are you kidding? You can't just glibly speak about "cancer causing chemicals" and "disease" as if those are neutral things. That is hardly the case; those things are themselves evidence of either no designer, or an inept/insane designer (or designers).

[count-your-change]

“That is hardly the case; those things are themselves evidence of either no designer, or an inept/insane designer (or designers).”

What logic would lead you to that conclusion? Repeating an assertion is not a logical argument nor evidence nor proof.