>>You can't conceive nature as an engineer and talk about how sloppy and random its designs are.
Why not? We can talk about how sloppy something is from a given perspective; we do it all the time, and then try to improve things (there will be no progress otherwise), and if we succeed/fail, learn more ...
>>as if you can read its mind
Nature/evolution is not a sentient being, thus has no mind. Do you have evidence to the contrary ?
When you look at something designed by a person, you can intuit what they were doing and judge it as good or sloppy. Nature requires a completely different type of thinking. It's ultimately unhelpful to anthropomorphize nature.
You can't conceive nature as an engineer and talk about how sloppy and random its designs are. You have to bear in mind that nature has made things that we can scarcely comprehend, let alone engineer, so if you're critiquing its designs as if you can read its mind and see what it was trying to do, you're probably missing the point. It pulls off incredible things, so nature is the master and we're the student.