I dont really agree with the "Man is part of Nature" theory..
but its definately a matter of opinion either way!
IMO, because we have such a radical capaicty for the destruction and change of nature, which no other animal has, there is a clear division between Humans and Nature..
Im in an unusual minority, because I happen to be a Christain who believes in both God and Evolution..to me, there is zero conflict between the two..
and to me, no matter which side you choose "literal biblical creationism, or "Godless evolution"
either way, Humans are STILL outside of nature!
One of the Biblical/Christian concepts I struggle with the most is the idea that "Humans are the ultimate pinnacle of God's creation"..um..no..I dont think so..
to me, we are simply a failed branch of God's creation..we are an experiment that got way out of hand..
(many species "fail"..even if you believe in God..they go extinct..)
(I have said it before...IMO, if humans went extinct tomorrow, it would be the best thing that has ever happened to life on earth..)
And if you take the evolution side of the coin, we are still outside of Nature in the sense that we have the ability to *change* the course of Nature..So we are the ones doing the changing, its not Nature doing it "herself"..(whatever you percieve "Nature" to be..)
So IMO the Bart Simpson VFT, the Pug Dog, the Persian cat, are no more "Natural" than plastics, jello and nuclear bombs..they are life forms created by humans, not created by nature..
To me, there is no conflict in the phrase "artifical nature"..
and to me, most of the man-made artificial nature is not good.
I would rather leave evolution up to nature or God..but not to humans..
we arent smart enough, or moral enough, to do it properly..we should leave it alone.
I have never been a big fan of humans..
I like some individual ones well enough..but as a group, im not impressed..
Scot