Argument from Conscience

[Neo-Scholastic]

What reason do you have to believe that the conscience is the product of one of these things rather than an adaptation in its own right?...our list of things it is a product of leaves out this possibility...Plus you equivocate from 'instinctual nature' in #2, to 'instinct' in #3, to just plain 'nature' in #6

Your point is taken. You are not the first to note a lack of definition about some terms. So if we are going to parse words, then let's start by clarifying what you mean by 'adaptation'. Adaptation could be an acquired trait gotten by acculturation and experience. Adaptation could be an inherited trait, the legacy of natural selection. Or adaptation could the built-in product of an intelligent designer. Take your pick, but I think each has been covered by: innate behavior, the individual, and god (respectively).

When you call conscience an 'adaptation in its own right', you have identified a subset within the category of innate behaviors and not something distinct from innate behaviors.

As for my using the terms 'instinct', 'instinctual nature' and 'nature' interchangeably, I think my intended meaning was sufficiently clear. Please feel free to substitute the unwieldy phrase 'innate behaviors, excluding reflexes'.