Maximumtool,
The point I was trying to make is exactly that there is a clear delineation between the natural and the supernatural. If a scientist proposes a new sub-atomic particle and is unable to measure that particle this does not mean that his hypothesis and particle are supernatural since there would be some evidence (albeit some obscure incomprehensible mathematical formula) that the hypothesis is based on. Science is not prone to random speculation. The supernatural world is based on pure speculation and hearsay, the subjective opinions and experiences of it's adherants. Is it arrogant to make the distinction? It might seem that way to others but I would not like to live in a world where the ravings of wild eyed loonies are given the same creedance as scientific hypotheses.
I would go as far as saying that most of us in the western world no longer accept the supernatural when it comes to medicine, travel, the homes we live in, the car we drive. Unless you go to the local witch doctor for all your healthcare needs then any claim that we should not be arrogant regarding what is natural (real) and supernatural (not real) is going to ring somewhat hollow.
Tell me the next time you fly, would you prefer an engineer to declare the plane safe for flight or have a witch doctor sacrifice a chicken and throw some bones on the floor?
You should admit you are already arrogant (although I prefer to call it common sense) enough to make the distinction yourself on a daily basis.
I ought to point out that I am not claiming that any life is artificial, because I am not a theist. I am merely pointing out that the theist worldview is that we are an artificial created species by any sensible definition of the word artificial.
(apologies for the formatting)