Coronavirus: a consequence of a fallen creation or just natural selection?
Which of the two statements is empirically verifiable? Natural selection of course. Now, which of the two statements seems more unfair to you?
Arguably, a society should be judged by how they look after their most vulnerable. From a purely evolutionary point of view it does not make sense to invest a lot of energy and time in the weaker members of society, but to not do so would be morally reprehensible. It may be true that people with weaker immune systems are more susceptible to the novel coronavirus but this does not make it somehow morally OK. Otherwise we end up with large numbers of young people not following government guidelines because they think they aren’t at risk and they don’t care about the weaker in society.
Although the Christian view that disease is part of a fallen creation is a theological statement and so cannot be scientifically verified, it fits better with our experience of the world. I think most people would prefer to live in a society where the vulnerable are cared for, rather than a cold utilitarian world where the weak are not protected from the effects of natural selection.
What I’m saying is that a naturalist worldview, which excludes the possibility of any ‘supernatural’ reality, can only account for natural processes but fails to deal with their moral implications, i.e. why we should behave in an ‘unnatural’ way by protecting the vulnerable even at the expense of the stronger.