Forgive me if I may be mixing up some response with anything you have said. It may have been you, may not.
But if I recall it was very much along the lines that evolution, (being in whatevere sense "responsible" means) is responsible for our being. Reason could not be attributed to it, because it does not operate according to reason...but is itself simply a mechanism, so to speak. Not a thing of reason or its application...simply a process.
Therefore without reason are we.
Yet, in some measure (I would venture here, each likes the finger on their side of the scale) we use, or at least say we do, reason. What then is "reason"...if no more than what each individual applies in some measurement of his being? Can it ever be more?
If there truly be no reason to our existence, just some vague and disparate convictions that we are (because there can never even be a "closer approach" to a thing that ultimately is refuted as being for "our being") then of what utility is it? You exclude professor in the practice of maths. Each answer is as right and as wrong as any. This is no argument that "there must be a professor" to judge in the exercise, simply that to exclude reason...as THE reason for being, is to exclude any possibility of knowing whether anyone's reasoning is taking them anywhere...other than just, as an exercise, each to his own preference. But to call it reason, as a substantial thing (which I believe has its own reason for elevation, as in "hey look, I reason better!") But the thing, of itself, really has no true substance...does it? So, each can claim it, each can run according to it (toward whatever preferred end) and feel quite confident in his reasonings. And, so it goes. But ultimately, with no professor, everyone gets passing and failing grade. Does it matter at all how many agree in a certain "reason"? Of course not. Does it matter if one disagree? Of course not. Because without reason for being, there can be no reason in being. If one wants to take the stance "well, it's a created thing...of man..." then obviously it could be said of what obligation (if there be no obligator toward reason) is any man under any other man's obligation to meet any standard of it? Here you will see why all and any "side bar" conversations taking place as to any man's deficiency in reason...are at the very least, laughable. At least according to my reason.
I cannot say "the believer's" assumption/understanding is superior here, merely different. All is of reason. Not one molecule (nor anything seen, or as yet unseen) is out of place, accidental, haphazard in its structure or position. Purposed, and that quite perfectly, by the perfection of all reason, One of all reason in Whom all things originate from Reason, for a reason. Not merely the source of reason...but the very One reason itself is. (I capitalize simply that there be no mistake in my reference). The reason of all.
Yes, the believer...quite assuredy believes in reason. He believes in an accountability to Reason for reason and accepts just chastening when found operating in purpose to the neglect of that reason. He may even find in seeking to be consistent to The Reason of all reasons his own reason must be rightly mocked and discarded as foolishness before those who find reason no more than a facet in man, a thing of their (man's) own construct by which they measure one's self against another. They have their reasons.
I suppose I should place an addendum. Rightly you (Ambush) expanded on a few of the things I merely mentioned as men not knowing where things might lead in "their seeking in, and of, life" You mentioned AI as signal threat seen by many "thinkers". It's interesting...and perhaps telling. Man's "creation" of an intelligence of "his own" appears to some as a great threat...to man himself. But what could "artificial intelligence" produce...but artificial intelligence? Each produces after its kind. Oh yes, there's quite a "mad scramble" after it.
