As I’ve said before, evo-atheists want us to believe that most organisms that are born die before they reproduce, a la Malthus. What a damnable doctrine indeed. Anybody can see that God would be a cruel and vicious God if He allowed that kind of carnage to exist in His Creation. Nature is not “red in tooth and claw”.
The evo-atheists want us to accept Malthus because they want to be the ones to “cull the human herd” to stop the imaginary geometric growth that Malthus said would happen if reproduction were to be unchecked. They want to be the un-natural selectors of death for those they deem “unfit”
I've wondered for some time if you aren't a mole posing as a religious person. Certainly this post reinforces my suspicion.
Let's take a look at your line of reasoning:
What this disguises is the rather obvious syllogism:
Theodicy is a tricky business. There are reasons why most religious people do not pretend to know the mind of God and do not presume to speak for His motives and intentions.
Both of the arguments I outlined are crap. And whether you close your eyes to it or not, the Malthusian check on population is both an observable fact and an inevitable mathematical conclusion.
Birds typically have four babies a year, and yet the population of birds doesn't double every year. Two thirds of polar bears die before age three -- before they are sexually mature. Most die of starvation. This list could go on and on.
You would do less damage to your cause by acknowledging the existence of pain in the world. I believe you have a doctrine that covers it. Maybe C.S. Lewis could help.