[Two Ravens]

“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.

Since we're interpreting things solely upon naturalistic grounds here (based upon the author's statement about the obvious character of nature), there aren't many possible conclusions that can be made

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. On purely naturalistic grounds, logic thus presents us with the following possibilities:

a. There is no designer(s)

b. There is an inept designer(s)

c. There is an insane designer(s)

Remember, the author is arguing that nature is obvious, so you can't appeal here to anything outside of nature.

[count-your-change]

Or that the best design can fail under misuse or under conditions it was not designed for or from external assault.

Insane designer? No, unless one would assume a sane design would never allow an infant to get cancer.

Inept designer? Logically no. Unless one can assume an ept design would never allow cancer in an infant.

No designer? If we accept that an infant getting cancer is evidence of no designer then what would we term the vast majority that do not get cancer evidence of?

No matter what view we take cancer in an infant doesn't logically lead to any of the possibilities you offer.

[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.