Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[The Grand Nudger]

You say, "You can't carve out a greater likelihood for one or the other", as if I didn't give plenty of reasons already for why the balance tilts towards benevolence.. This is not rocket science, we evaluate this "likelihood" based on what we observe. And what we observe is that peace, empathy, sense of community, our inner moral compass, our sense of justice, etc. are all the default state of our species. Going to war is an exceptional occurence, perpetrating genocide and other gravely immoral acts is exceptional, etc. 

We're a hyper social species, endowed with a great many adaptations to that effect..though...to be fair to all other life, none of that makes us particularly benevolent - and it causes some pretty serious issues between groups, too.

I want to ask, though, are you willing to account for all of humanities attributes when you propose benevolence through design?  We have flaws too..deep flaws.  Does this suggest the designer is flawed in the way that having some amount of benevolence would suggest the designer is benevolent? We're flawed, and we can't have gotten what our creator didn't have to give..correct?