I'd be happy to argue some sophistry on this one from the theists standpoint. I had a long and (shockingly, lol) unproductive debate against Jcannon on this topic of the arguments from evil where I was arguing the point that the presence of our level of natural suffering constitutes strong evidence for the non-existance of God. The theists defenses are varied, but they will usually fall upon:
1. The higher / hidden / unknown purpose defense (HPD or UPD). God's highest purpose is currently being accomplished, but suffering is necessary or inevitable in this process. Perhaps this level of suffering maximizes the decision of humans to serve God.
2. The testing defense (TD): It is more important for God to test humans than it is for a low level of suffering to occur.
3. The free will defense (FWD): The nature of human free will makes it necessary for testing to occur.
JW's, for example, have a form of #1. To them, it's more important for God to prove his sovereignty than it is for suffering to be minimized.