Yes, beyond the disagreement about facts there is another deeper disagreement about values.
However, the division of values into "humanism" and "naturalism" is not as deep as it gets.

The underlying issue here is WILFULNESS and our attitude towards it, for which there are three approaches:

1) Apathy, inertia - "I don't care to bother or make an effort".
2) Vigour - "I can and will do anything to achieve what I want".
3) Serenity - "I could do things if I'm called for it, but I'm at peace and everything is well as it is".

Vigour is better than apathy, but serenity is better than vigour.

We are all animal species and, us such, we all share this planet.
We do not own it.
We, as Homo Sapiens, are no better, and no worse, than any other species of animal.
In fact it can be argued that perhaps we are a worse species than other animal species as we are the only species wantonly destroying our own Environment for our own selfish personal gratification.
We certainly do not have a right to destroy it.

Like most apologists for genetically modified "foods" Don pretends that the processes involved in both nature and those involved in old-fashioned plant and animal breeding (WHICH WERE ALWAYS WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES) is no different than that done when genes of fish (for instance) are inserted into a plant genome.
The Black Adder would have had something to say about that in very expletive terms - in two words the first of which is UTTER, the second begins with C.

Meanwhile the author and inspiration of these profoundly human references provides a template for understanding humankind's place in the natural world.
http://sacredcamelgardens.com/wordpress/the-unique-potential-of-man
http://www.dabase.org/p2anthro.htm
http://www.a-institute.org

The above author was also very much opposed to GM "foods".

These two references provide all the information that one needs to debunk all of the claims put forward by the advocates of GM "foods" - and their wall-to-wall lies and disinformation:
http://gmo.mercola.com
http://www.i-sis.org.uk

And I am sure that the people who produce and have affinity with the contents and message of these two deeply human magazines are agin GM "foods" too.

http://resurgence.org
http://orionmagazine.org

Don, I think you misunderstood Dyson and I suspect Dyson meant normal environmentalists are humanists but there are some on the fringe he refers to as naturalists. I think normal environmentalists who are humanists want to avoid wiping out species and want to avoid unneccessary destruction for a combination of reasons ranging from perserving yet unknown genetic solutions to wanting to preserve a natural environment so our grandchildren will still have an option of going camping and taking their own beautiful wilderness photos. And I suspect Dyson's naturalists are the fringe who, so to say, chain themselves to bulldozers to prevent any blade of grass ever again being cut by mankind.

Royal National Park is a nice effort but it does not include a native orchid that now only grows in a small part of Chain Valley Bay, nor does it include platypus or jack ants that may yet improve the quality of life of future generations in ways not imagined by us. So while I will not chain myself to the front of a bulldozer to save a weed growing in the footpath or even a empty lot; I do not trust our three layers of government enough to blindly accept their assurances that all is well.

" It occurs whenever a human being grafts a branch from one fruit tree onto another, or ensures that a mare is serviced only by a particular stallion. "

Err, no Don. Grafting is not genetic modification in any sense.

I can can see what you are getting at with with the horse breeding example, modification by breeding and artificial selection. This is of course the origin of most of our modern domestic animals and crops.

However, the phrase 'genetic modification' has a fairly specific definition in modern parlance, which neither of these examples fit.

Does this make your argument stronger, weaker or are they irrelevant to the argument? In which case, why were they included?

I could make the suggestion that you ensure that you fully understand the concepts you write about, but that would mean a massive reduction in your output, so I won't.

ateday,

Speak for yourself, if you don't mind. There are people who are referred to as 'animals' because they act like animals. That in itself should be enough to indicate that people are expected to operate on a higher plane than animals, and they usually do; even the ones who get a bit animalistic sometimes.

I don't think many people would take offence at your comparison of them with animals, but you are putting yourself down.

The other day I heard a woman tell one of those little, white fluffy dogs that look like mops without a handle to, "Come mummy". Yuk! In her case, I would have to agree that I would be pressed to decide which of the two had the more sense. But in general, I prefer people, and would never compare them with animals.