Reason is employed whenever humans interpret anything. Theologians use human reason and evidence to interpret what God has revealed in his scriptures. Scientists use human reason and evidence to interpret what God has revealed in his creation. Your statements seem to imply that human reason and evidence only apply to science and not the study of the scriptures. Scholarly articles in both peer-reviewed scientific journals and peer-reviewed theological journals rely upon human reason and the evidence from their respective fields. So I must reject the false dichotomy.
Your statements also might be interpreted to imply that God’s revelations in his creation are inherently inferior to what God has revealed in his scriptures. I prefer to consider all that God has chosen to reveal to us. So when I draw upon both my knowledge of science and my knowledge of the Bible when reaching my conclusions about origins, I am submitting to the authority of God in all of his revelations. Again, I strongly reject the false dichotomy.
God has revealed truth to us in many ways. In addition to the creation and the scriptures, God has given Christ-followers the witness of his Holy Spirit. And some people have benefitted from direct revelations of truth from God. For example, those at Belshazzar’s feast were informed by words written on a wall by a hand which suddenly appeared: “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.” Daniel was called in by the king and he translated and explained the meaning of the words. I could give many other examples. So why would I want to restrict myself to just one of God’s means of revealing truths to us? Some prefer to focus solely on what the scriptures tell us. I prefer to consider all that God has revealed.
I was a Young Earth Creationist for many years. I eventually grew weary of the false argument that the scriptures are somehow “obvious” and not subject to human reason and interpretation—while the study of creation (aka scientific examination of the universe) is somehow hopelessly ambiguous and subjective because “mere human reason” is involved and that such “human interpretations” can’t be trusted. After a lifetime of exegetical studies, I could only wish that the study and interpretation of many of the most difficult scriptures were as straightforward and unambiguous as the interpretation of a lot of the scientific evidence for various physical phenomenon. I can also say as both a scientist and as a theologian that God endowed us with human reason and “argument” (as you called it) so that we can study, discuss, and better understand what God has revealed in his scriptures and in his creation. I do not have a low view of human reason nor do I disregard evidence. Human reason is a gift of God. It doesn’t make us inerrant but it does make us human and specially blessed by God. (Other animals do not enjoy the benefits of human reason.) It is an endowment under the Imago Dei we read about in Genesis.
[And just for the record, I was a science professor before I became a seminary professor. So I do have publishing experience as a scholar in both science and theology. I’m also a born-again evangelical and ordained minister who still preaches now and then. I mention these descriptions simply to avoid wasting time on any stereotypical presumptions about me having a low view of scripture or favoring “the authority of man” or whatever. I have a very high view of what God has revealed in the Bible and a very high view of what God has revealed in his creation. God teaches us many truths in both. Why would anyone wish to limit themselves to only some of the truths God has revealed to us?]
[Perhaps I should also mention that I affirm biological evolution because God has clearly revealed it in his creation and God’s scriptures say nothing to contradict that revelation. That being the case, why should we try to use human reason to deny that which God has created and called “good” in his creation? Unfortunately, I used to lecture on “creation science” and put great energy into denying evolutionary processes. I suppose you could say that I was misapplying human reason (as well as cherry-picking and abusing evidence) to deny what God had clearly revealed in his creation. Yes, I was guilty of all of that. Because I didn’t like what I thought I knew (but misunderstood) about the Theory of Evolution, I worked very hard to declare evil that which God had created and declared “very good”. Was that a “magisterial” error on my part? I was ordained at the time so perhaps it was a “ministerial” error!]