Consider this valid argument:
- (Premise) Moral outrage at an event is misplaced when no one is responsible for the event.
- (Premise) Moral outrage at the suffering of animals before the advent of humankind is not misplaced.
- (Premise) If naturalism is true, then no one is responsible for the suffering of animals before the advent of humankind.
- So, naturalism is false.
I don't know if (2) is true, though. But this argument does put pressure on the naturalist running an argument from the suffering of animals against the existence of God. For that argument is persuasive in large part by creating moral outrage in the reader. But if naturalism is true, that outrage is misplaced.
What if theism is true? Is the outrage misplaced? That depends. If, say, the devil is behind that suffering, it's not misplaced.