Upon thinking about this the last couple days I think I've determined that Nature is one of those things that people can take and make it into whatever they want.
For instance, some people claim that there is no God because you cannot see Him in Nature.
Others say that just by looking at Nature this gives proof that there must be a God.
People use (me included) Nature to show what ought to be "Natural" and what ought to be "UnNatural" while at the same time Nature, by it's very essence denies the fact that UnNatural could even exist.
Nature is what leads people to worshiping the Earth as a Goddess, while at the same time gives people the freedom to misuse Nature because it is here for us to us.
Nature supports Evolution through it's own layers of rock and fossils, but at the same time by it's very complexity demands a creator.
The point: Nature can be construed to be evidence for almost any position that you may take. If one has a theory, they can find some kind of support for it in Nature -- whether the theory is true or not.
My question: Because of the fact that one can use Nature to support almost any idea, should Nature be allowed to be used as support for any theory? Keep in mind what this entails: The eradication of science, as well as most religions, any moral code... but also denies the premise that Nature can be misused. If we allow Nature to be used as support for a theory is it possible to draw a line at what should be allowed and what shouldn't? One cannot say "Nature can support Science, but not Materialism," can you?