Natural language is full of anthropocentric connotations. We should certainly understand that these connotations don't literally apply to nature, but the pantheistic re-enchanter of nature points out that nature simulates deliberate creative and destructive processes. That's what misled us into thinking that life was intelligently designed. The designs and the biofunctions were real, but the process was monstrously headless.

It's the same with the "events" that create galaxies of solar systems. There are no deliberate trials and errors in nature, but there are phases in which the universe seemed superficially to be building those complexities. The early phase was chaotic, when cosmic masses slammed into each other. Eventually, an equilibrium was reached, which is the phase we currently occupy.

My point is that we shouldn't dismiss the anthropocentric interpretations entirely, but should look at them ironically as indicating a monstrous pseudo-intelligence and creativity in nature. The fact is that the universe is a self-creating and evolving order. So what do we call something that mindlessly creates complexity, with no intelligence, foresight, or redemptive purpose? Just a series of "events" or a blasphemous abomination that mocks our vain notions of divinity?

Disgust for nature seems rooted in fear of death but also in melancholy longings for ideal alternatives, in horror for the monstrousness (mindless efficiency) of natural creativity, and in sorrow for the pointlessness of all our suffering (including the suffering of animals). That's just off the top of my head, mind you.