Darwinists must necessarily belittle logic because it worries their theory. It must be minimized, shown to be unreliable and undependable. This is why Hume, after he said it is reasonable to believe in a Creator, also said that because there is no Creator reason must be unreliable. Did you get that? Hume, presumably from an armchair, ruled reason unreliable because it did not suit his worldview!
On to your next post.
I think that, at best, Hume might have agreed that it was useful to believe in a Creator, not reasonable. And while Hume certainly said that some sorts of reason - determining causal relationships in particular - were logically unreliable, this is hardly the same as suggesting that all reason is unreliable, nor is it predicated at all on his belief in the absence of a Creator - his discussion of the limits of reason neither requires the presence or absence of a Creator.
"An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"
"Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"