by Leslie » May 17th, 2007, 4:55 pm
Another problem (as I see it, anyway) with the "well-designed but fallen" argument is that we have no direct physical evidence of unfallen design. Outside of theology, we have only the sense that disease and death are an affront to life, and it is only theology that suggests that these were not part of the original design.
One could perhaps try to draw out the argument that we instinctively know that disease is evil, along the lines of Lewis' argument about the universal moral law in Mere Christianity. But it can easily be argued that disease runs counter to the instinct for physical suvival, and thus that there need be no supernatural explanation for our hatred of it.
Really, Comfort and Cameron could have done much better by steering clear of physical design entirely, and presenting the arguments from MC; but the prevailing debate of creation/design vs evolution is perhaps what they are most familiar with.
"What are you laughing at?"
"At myself. My little puny self," said Phillipa.
--Rumer Godden, In This House of Brede