I think we would disagree on the meanings of words. Of course I think you are coopting common language in too liberal a way and you'll say I'm not using enough imagination.Let me ask you something before I answer your question. If the singularity from which "all things" arose was intelligent in addition to being extremely ordered and powerful would you call it a "supernatural" entity or just a "natural" entity?
In anticipation that you will say that an intelligent singularity is not possible, let me remind you that the best science in the world acknowledges the singularity from which "all things" come from was extremely ordered and powerful. I propose from science itself (and not necessarily religion) that the singularity was also intelligent, for in our universe, intelligence and cognitive capacity correlate with complexity.
So tell me, presuming our origins came from this powerful, extremely ordered, plausibly intelligent entity, which scientists call the "singularity" at the beginning of our cosmos, what would YOU describe it as, "supernatural" or "natural"?
It really makes no difference to me what label you choose as long as WE agree on what WE are talking about. Labels, titles, and names carry baggage, negative or positive connotations, and people react to names and titles before they even understand what they mean.
So far our discussion is based solely on the empirical evidence, science, facts, and reason. I have not suggested anything, yet, that is a theological proposition. Would any a-theist, scientist, or educated person reject the notion that "all things" came from a single, complex, powerful, plausibly, intelligent thing?
Now, to answer your question.
Yes, I accept the evidence in front of us, that the origination of our souls in a lifeless universe made such lifeless universe alive again which can be characterized as a "resurrection". It matters not to me whether you call it a "supernatural" or "natural" process.
From Merriam Webster
Resurrection -- : the state of one risen from the dead
Obviously, the weakness in my proposition is that the whole body remains as a corpse, nevertheless, alive, --in us. Which means that for the aliveness in us to continue, the whole body must also be returned to perfection, ordered, and whole. And that is exactly one evidence-based theory for the end of our universe.
The point here is that the theological idea of "resurrection" can be correlated with natural processes. Taken as a whole, the life of the universe (from "beginning" to "end", from "first" to "last"), its "body" (or corpse), soul(s) (us), and spirit (virtues: love, good, truth, etc.) could arguably be characterized as "supernatural" and part of a Master Plan.
What plan would that be? (Here it becomes theological). For God to return a good life to his Son (creation) in us, and save us to become his family for eternity. We truly are the sons and daughters of God which makes us extraordinary!! We are his handwriting in the universe.
1. We know intelligence is a product of biology. There is no example of intelligence outside biology. I won't say its impossible. I'll say only that it's easy to project that which we know to be intelligence onto things that do not possess the prerequisites of our entire definition of the term.
2. The attempt to say that powerful order and intelligence is one and the same is to allow that any patterned "thing" can be tagged as intelligence. You can't just pick a singularity as the only viable subject of such a broad declaration. You get into trouble right there.... Snowflakes are smart!!!!
3. The term "Entity" implies this biological sentience.
4. Resurrection is a term to describe that which was once living coming alive again after death. It is mis-appropriated in your example. The world was believed to be lifeless prior to life teaming within it.
5. No scientist that isn't attempting to prove intelligent design thinks complexity implies intelligence. In those cases they are already begging the question.
So with that out of the way, as far as your question "So tell me, presuming our origins came from this powerful, extremely ordered, plausibly intelligent entity, which scientists call the "singularity" at the beginning of our cosmos, what would YOU describe it as, "supernatural" or "natural"? - I'm already off the farm with the way you bend common language to beg the question.