'Natural' is an ambiguous term; the answer to the question of this thread is different depending on the definition of the word. It seems like most of the arguments in this thread and elsewhere are simply due to different people taking 'natural' to mean different things.
If 'natural' is taken to mean 'everything which is either not human, not created by humans, or not affected by humans', then the separation is obvious.
If 'natural' is taken to mean 'everything which does not violate the known laws of physics', then the line of separation is less clear. If the existence of anything outside the laws of physics is denied categorically, then everything known to man, including man, is natural. If humans (or human self-awareness) are a result of a violation of the laws of physics, by God or otherwise, then humans are unnatural.
I believe the question of the naturalness of humanity is ultimately a distraction; either it's simply a matter of definition, or the real question is about whether or not humans were a result of nothing but the laws of physics, or whether the laws were broken to create humans. Which is one way of looking at the entire creation vs evolution debate. Answering the question raised in this thread would require answering the question raised by this entire message board. (of course, every person posting here has already made up their minds about the answer to that, so there is little point to it all...)
However, that is also a false dichotomy. Humanity can be a result of, and compatible with, the laws of physics, AND God can have created humanity. After all, if God is in fact perfect, He could have a created a universe which created exactly the kind of being he wanted due to the very nature of the material it was composed of. Which is theistic evolution.
™ Version 4.2
