(Image from Forestopia.net)
Supernature vs Nature, surely Supernature would win right, because Superman would put a good ol' fashion beat down on just any ordinary man? Well, in this case, it does not imply any form of superiority, but simply two different ideals on creationism. The Supernatural is the belief in an underlying spiritual creator behind all of existence, and thus Natural would be the opposite, that is, that man evolved from nature through evolutionary standards. Both are very valid beliefs and both require a bit of "Faith" at this point in time.
A supernatural creation involves a God or Gods that created the world, whether these gods are still actively involved in their creation depends on the belief system. This sort of belief explains many, many things that cannot else wise be explained in the world/universe we reside in. The problem with a supernatural belief is that even though "specialists" in the field often have degrees, there really is no empirical evidence for such an existence. The programs that one studies is a compilation of man's speculation for a certain period of time (however long it has been that we have not known the answer, perhaps always). This puts a massive damper on this sort of specialists credentials. There is hope though, as physicists uncover new things their evidence leads to a "more than physical" existence. Plus there are many (once again untrained) Paranormalists who are able to record and/or document supernatural activity (which once is again is debatable). It is possible that there is much more to this world that we don't understand and that we can't see under a microscope. Does this mean that there is a God? Well, no, not at all. It means that there is something more out there that we have yet to have the tools to measure, see, or gauge. But the very existence of "something more" goes against the beliefs of a naturalist.
A natural creation usually involves the idea of evolution, that is, man (and all species for that matter) evolved from single cell organisms. Darwinism, Big Bang, Survival of the Fittest, these are all theories that belong to this school of thought but do not make it. This sort of creation is just as phenomenal, that we truly are children of our planet which is a child of the universe. And, out of the two, there is more evidence to back up this idea. However, empirical data for both are sadly lacking. What do I mean by empirical data? It means that neither belief can be proven within close reason, by scientific standards to date (experimentation, recreation, documentation, experience). We know that man has been around for so many years through archeological excavation, but this does not prove that we evolved, it just shows that we existed for so long. There is also evidence to things that predate man's existence. Man has similar chromosomes to other species and all species share a common physical design (eyes, nose, mouth, longs, legs, arms, etc). We have also found the skulls of what we believe to be "Neanderthals." The problem that scientists run into for this theory, is that there are no missing links, there is no proof that man evolved from the Neanderthal, ape, or otherwise. There is no rhyme or reason for a single-celled organism to evolve into a multi-celled, and there is the everlasting question of what came before? Many scientists believe without a doubt that the Big Bang Theory is how the Universe was created... well, what was before the Big Bang? How was the Big Bang created? Where did that energy come from and why did it suddenly change? These questions all lead us back to a supernatural creation.
So are we the creation of Supernatural or Natural means? I don't honestly know, but without an open minded observation into both, there can be no answers. Atheists have to be able to understand that not only has Spiritualism existed since man's creation, but that there just is no concrete evidence at this point to prove either way. Theists have to remember that there is scientific data proving against most religious beliefs, and that scientists have been able to recreate many "magical" components of this world. Does this mean that each of these ideas are exclusive? Well, by design, yes, but realistically, no. There is no reason why a God didn't somehow, magically, appear out of thin air and set things in motion that later led to the evolution of man. There is also no reason why a God can't exist outside of evolution or even because of evolution. In recent years there has been a "New Age Movement" of spiritualists who have removed themselves from religious diplomacy, respected tradition, and opened their minds to a new kind of "faith." They accept many archaeological finds, scientific experimentation, and still hold onto the belief that there is an existence beyond our own. Perhaps this is what the world will move toward in the coming years. Personally, I think the only way to move ahead is to respect tradition, honor experimentation, and don't be too hasty to deny any possibility. Lastly, open communication on all subjects, no matter how taboo, is the only way to truly sort things out.
