Death as an Argument for God

Death is usually viewed as an argument against the existence of God. A good God wouldn't allow suffering and evil and death, or at least so the argument goes. However it struck me that there is something about death that actually makes it a good argument for God.

If evolution caused the seemingly infinite variety of life forms and intricate biological functions that we observe, why is it that in the billions upon billions of adaptations found in nature, evolution has not found the one adaptation that--by far--would be the most beneficial to a species, namely, a lack of mortality?

I do not mean immortality in the sense that an animal could fall into a volcano and live. What I mean to ask is why there is not one single organism, from cockroach to man to bacteria, that does not possess natural mortality? Certainly pre-programmed death cannot be more beneficial to a species than an unlimited lifespan? Nor is there any inherent reason why, with as much complexity as life has, could it not find a way for at least one single organism to sustain itself indefinitely?

If blind nature can supposedly find a way to create eyesight and consciousness, then why couldn't it find a way for one simply organism to just keep on living unless meets a violent death? All that would be necessary for this would be the adequate repair or replacement or parts. Certainly that would have been easier for blind nature to achieve rather than biological reproduction--especially when it involves two different gendered parents. If blind nature can find a way for life to build itself automatically from a single cell after conception, then why can it not find a way for one organism to sustain itself indefinitely?

But death is a fact. And it is a fact that is explained by a Biblical worldview. Human death, at least, came into the world when Adam rebelled against God and cut himself off from the source of life (Genesis 3; Romans 5). Death is part of the curse that is now over this world, and which one day will be lifted because of Jesus' death on the cross. The existence of death is better explained by a Biblical worldview than by blind naturalism, and thus strangely enough death is actually an argument for the existence of God

Adam and Eve and Incest

In a question and answer forum I was asked by a student how Adam and Eve's children could have had children without incest. I gave a two-part reply. They appreciated the last part the best.

I replied that they didn't. Since there were no other humans, Adam and Eve's children would have had no one else to marry but each other. But, this was before incest was specifically forbidden and it wouldn't have been sin. And as far as deformities caused by incest, I think it is safe to presume that there must have been something genetically pure or different about the early humans. In Genesis we read about early humans living extremely long lives.  Also, Adam and Eve's DNA would have contained the diversity of all the races.  So there was probably something special about their genetics that kept everyone from being born with arms growing out of their heads.

But if someone thinks to themselves that this is a far-fetched and stupid and that evolution makes more sense, then think about this: If Adam and Eve's kids had a problem, what kind of problem would there be for evolution? When the first monkey evolves into a human, there is just one human being. Who does that guy have to marry? A monkey. At least with Adam and Eve there were two human beings to get things started. With evolution, the first human being has to hook up with an animal. So you tell me which is more messed up?

Burn.

Yes, I know that no one thinks that monkeys evolved directly into human beings. I was obviously being rhetorical. Still, the inescapable fact is that if evolution is true, then the first human had no one to mate with except for a non-human.