an interesting beginning to an argument. would be good to see it fleshed out a little..
I see his point about the "disavowing" aspect of the "we are part of nature" philosophy.
However, the fact remains: we are part of nature. The shift needs to be that we act on the responsibility that implies instead of using the same that fact to justify a resigned march straight into catastrophe.
For example: an alcoholic may say "I drink because I can. If God wanted me to not drink, he would have given me a body that cannot desire alcohol." The first sentence is true, the second sentence (conclusion) is full of faulty logic.
The better response is to realize that if you drink because you can, you can also stop drinking because you can.
To many people I have suggested that in order to appreciate your full divinity, you must fully accept yourself as an animal. This goes directly against thousands of years of enculturation that teaches us our divinity lies in the idea that we are separate from the animal kingdom, while in fact, no science supports such a conclusion.
So while it is true that we are part of nature, the correct response is to accept the responsibility that implies, while the incorrect response is to use it as a disavowing-type argument.