They forced you to choose between 'natural process' and 'guided by a supreme being' as exclusive opposites. How about if you believe (as most religious people do) that natural processes are guided by a supreme being. The nature and tone of the question will cause most to choose the supreme being option, when they probably are thinking 'both'.
You're fudging definitions here, but if you believe the process is guided by a supreme being, then [i]that's[/i] your answer. Your dispute is over the method & period of time the creation story happened, but you still argue it happened.
God set up the rules and conditions so that what he wanted to happen would happen. Sort of a 15+ billion year bank shot. To me, that is _much_ more impressive than "Wham, here's everything".
Likewise. I find it impressive & think myself tremndously lucky that our existence & the world around us even came to be, given the odds. But this is an inevitable conundrum.
Picture a man tied to a chair in a room, with a gun pointed to his head. Out of a hundred rounds, one is blank.
After numerous men have been shot & replaced, one of them gets the blank. Now with him knowing the odds & yet still being alive, he will undoubtedly question whether [i]any[/i] of the rounds were live.
It's logical to be astounded & question the tiny odds we came to existence, but I don't think attributing it to some infallible entity answers any questions.
Using God as the answer to "how was the universe created?" & then exempting him from the same requirement to be created doesn't quite follow through, does it?