Unresolvable argument

It occurred to me a couple days ago, amongst my random mental ramblings, that the 'abstinence' argument for preventing unwanted pregnancy is unresolvable.

The problem is this:

Creationists believe that a 'God' created us. For those who believe that sex is a sin, they believe that, like any other sin, it is a weakness that we can choose to overcome if we are 'godly' enough.

Those of us who recognize the likeliness of evolution as the source of humanity also recognize that that evolution has optimized us for sex in general and procreation in specific. The instinct to procreate has evolved to be the strongest natural force in human will. It's why even the wisest, most knowledgeable, most intelligent people can succumb to 'passions' no matter the consequence.

That's why 'evolutionists' recognize the need for measures that acknowledge the inevitability of sex in order to reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancy, disease transmission, and non-consensual sex. To 'evolutionists', abstinence is not a viable solution as it will fail in the vast majority of cases.

Creationists won't accept the evolutionary will theory. Their belief that all human behavior can be made subservient to the individual's "devotion to God" makes them impervious to any arguments in favor of non-abstinence-focused approaches.