I have to disagree for a milder reason with Paul’s letter, and that is I don’t like Paul’s assertion that
“My initial conditional clause “since humans are part of nature” clearly implied that design and production by humans was equivalent to design and production by nature.”
I do not agree with any of this. It does not follow that because humans are
part of nature (the universe), that the word “natural” should apply to everything. And that it should just as well apply to human-designed things as much as to other things. That is, as much to large hadron colliders and
nuclear aircraft carriers , as to rocks, dust, and interstellar gas.
I think terms are useful in language when they describe a distinction which
is useful. Natural and artificial are examples of such terms. I certainly see a big difference between artifacts designed by human imagination, and other stuff that is not. And (for that matter) between natural and artificial selection, just as Charles Darwin did. I’m not going to give up useful and historically-defined and very well understood linguistic terms because Paul Wakfer thinks they are politically or philosophically
incorrect. I disagree with him and will leave him to use his own personal
language in a way that most people don’t, and let him fight it out with
people who then will inevitably misunderstand him.