Not really. Your original use of the word implied the definition you were using, and my comment was merely to point out that it's the wrong definition (in my opinion, obviously).

In this context it makes more sense to include the intention, because the evolution itself in this case is not something we artificially induced.

The elephants, for example, might have evolved to have green tusks instead, which would have made them not attractive to poachers. They could have grown wings that would made them more difficult to be hunted. The point is, poaching might be artificial, but the elephants responded to a threat (coming from humans or not) with a completely random and natural process.

People trust traditional techniques of preparing food because they have proven successful at their intended goals. When you start messing with people's food, they become suspicious as to whether you know the full repercussions of what you are doing.

So the injection of a novel element is considered "artificial" - despoiling the "natural" -- e.g. time-tested technique, and possibly disturbing something fragile -- e.g. human health.

Similarly, people are quite reactionary when it comes to open spaces and nature because they see a system that appears to be in balance and has survived the test of time. They oppose altering the current state of affairs because they are sure some unintended side effect will screw things up.

On the one hand, it's laudable to have these goals, but if they used the standard language of conservatism, traditionalism, etc, they would be branded as reactionaries, so the spirit of the age is to invent new words like "artificial" and "natural" that are less loaded with politics, even though it is all just conservatism at its roots.