Great catch! Thanks for the heads up! donh, your post again (emphasis mine:)
Beyond this, the fact that humans might utilize the gifts they are given by nature for other than the purposes nature intended is not, to my mind, much of a devastatating arguement. It does not, in any way obvious to me, demonstrate the necessity of divine intervention.
To follow-on betty boop’s observation, anything capable of giving gifts for an intended purpose is intelligent per se and therefore donh's statement would indicate he supports intelligent design with the designer being "nature." And to follow-on to unspun’s observation – if donh misspoke and instead supports metaphysical naturalism – truly believes morality evolved as part of physicality – then that would make him a moral relativist by diversity in nature and would of necessity put his world-view in the column of determinism, i.e. "free will" is of no force or effect because "it was my nature to do it."
Under that world-view, anyone – whether having the "heart" of a hyena or that of a minister, indeed whether being a hyena or human - would be equally justified in their own individual moral convictions and thus, not responsible to any other individual (whether or not of the same species) for the consequences thereof. Actually, it sounds like a utopia world-view for anarchism.
My goodness. Y'all certainly got a lot of mileage out of one little word. Just because I've referred to human capacities as "gifts", is really not a warrant to suppose I think--or that there is--a gift giver. One could, and many have, of course, made the same argument regarding the "gift" of Newtons 1st law, without which said operating, spear-chucking would a a pretty darn haphazard undertaking. Natural laws don't necessarily imply a lawgiver, just as natural gifts don't necessarily imply a giftgiver. You are antropomorphising the universe without sufficient compelling evidence to overcome the skepticism of the unpursuaded, or, at least me.
I consider this a misuse of logic sometimes called "swapping the domain of discourse" by metamathematicians, and manifested as what more traditional logicians called the "fallacy of the excluded middle".