I think you're playing a game of semantics while also disregarding the extraordinary value of ideas that drive arrangement and purpose which thus define created/evolved things as "new".
Semantically, who expects that something "new" has to be made from some exotic arrangement of Higgs Bosons doing something in extra dimensions that we had never thought possible? New is whatever people tend to agree on is different enough to call it that.
In terms of your disregard of arrangement and purpose, think of it this way: The atoms that make up a human being and give him all the range of thought and emotion that he has can be copied chemically and put in a big jar. That jar of chemicals is cheap and practically valueless. The particular arrangement that makes up a human being is something completely new and different from the sum of its parts. A cynic would say, "But a living human is just a rearrangement of pre-existing carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and some other common chemicals."
Semantically, who expects that something "new" has to be made from some exotic arrangement of Higgs Bosons doing something in extra dimensions that we had never thought possible? New is whatever people tend to agree on is different enough to call it that.
In terms of your disregard of arrangement and purpose, think of it this way: The atoms that make up a human being and give him all the range of thought and emotion that he has can be copied chemically and put in a big jar. That jar of chemicals is cheap and practically valueless. The particular arrangement that makes up a human being is something completely new and different from the sum of its parts. A cynic would say, "But a living human is just a rearrangement of pre-existing carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and some other common chemicals."