"The camera is a mechanical device and is designed to be as accurate as possible in its role of capturing (or representing) what was actually there."
Probably true. But in actuality, the modern camera, be it digital or film, fails pretty miserably at capturing what is actually there. The human eye can see differences in luminocity of perhaps a million to one. An actual scene can be much greater than that. Printed photogrpahs about 5 stops. Even your dream 12 stop dynamic range digital wonder camera fails.
Unless you are color blind, Hernadez was in living color. Adams photographed it in black, white and shades of gray. I don't know for sure, but I suppose the sky was some shade of blue, not pure black. I have no idea what bit depth of color a human can see, but it may be better than most cameras.
My point is Ray, that Hernandez at 4:05pm on October 31, 1941, didn't look like Adams' famous photograph. And I would also guess that a very faithful to reality, ultra high resolution, 20 stop dynamic range 64 bit color image would look pretty ordinary by comparison.
Ray, you say that it is difficult to add organization to an image, but randomness is easy. That is pure, hang on, science called thermodynamics. Seems to contradict evolution theory.