Of course a human being is a biological creature, and subject to the "laws" of nature.
So what is the "nature" versus "man" debate all about?
"Man" in this context is the neo-cortex, which at its efficacious best is structured thought, and the inventions of this neo-cortex (which in many cases improve its efficiency), such as planning, tools, scientific theories, technological inventions, computers, statistical modeling, and so on.
In brief: "Man" is Structured Thought, Tools to aid Structured Thought, and Applications of Structured Thought.
"Nature" is the complement (in set-theoretic terms) of "Man". It is the irrational, the evolutionary, the biological, the passionate, the intuitive, the physical, the "real", the starlight (as opposed to a tubelight), ... Whatever is there or has happened in the world without "Man" is "Nature".
"Nature" is evolutionary and continuous, with incremental changes over a long time. "Man" is revolutionary and discrete, with sudden big changes in a short span of time. "Nature" is reality, "Man" is its model. To change a model, and to apply a model, is far easier than to know or change reality. "Nature" is a billion things falling. "Man" is the theory of gravitation: one formula (at least in Newtonian Physics).
Once one man knows that the earth is round, this change in "Man" takes only a few hundred years to propagate and use, for all men. But the "roundness" of earth itself has evolved over billions of years.
"Nature" is a happening, "Man" is a knowing, and the knowledgeable using of that knowing.
The propagation of knowledge in "Man" is memetic. However, the memetic cannot easily penetrate the limbic, the genetic or the neurotic (that's the whole problem with morality, spirituality, self-help, therapy, value-education, etc.). Various pathways are proposed to tackle this divide, their efficacy is uncertain.
Those who see the damage to "Nature" done by "Man" (including the neurotic damage in man), cry for a return to "Nature", and they vehemently oppose knowledge, science, technology, planning, economics, etc. The more radical ones, and those who intuitively get the "point" that the perceived problem is not with the application, but with "Man", oppose the use of neo-cortex itself.
Read any radical spiritual text, and you will agree with me. Search for "mind is the enemy" and you get more than five million web pages as the result. The first ten pages give you a good idea.
Both "man" and "nature" can be cruel and heartless (an atomic bomb, an earthquake). Both can be justified (karma in this life, karma in the past life). Both can be accepted (life is a bitch, there is a higher peace). Both can be criticized (divinity/forgiveness, humanism). Both have their advocates, both have their enemies. Both advocates and enemies contain both "man" and "nature" in them but their allegiance to each varies.
When people say science and spirituality are at war, they think the problem is between a true thought and a false thought. No. The problem is between "Man" and his "Nature". If the belief of Christianity has evolved over 2000 years, it is more "Natural", widespread, deeper, emotionally and culturally hooked than Darwinism, and "Man" cannot expect to overturn this belief overnight. You think Darwinism, or some other piece of "Man" cannot turn into "Nature"? Think again. Buddhism at one point was "Man", now it is "Nature".
Will "Nature" ever be vanquished? Of course not. There will always be starlight. What will happen is that we will pretend "Nature" is no more. The arena will change. We will see our shaved chests, and believe in it. We won't even get to see starlight, only tubelights, or even better, neon lights. Haven't you noticed, the movies, the music are becoming more and more un-"natur"al? CGI in films and artificial sounds in the songs.
Did you notice that recently, human voices in songs are being modulated to sound more robotic (an example Hindi film song from 2008 is here). Another recent hit with modulated voices is here.
Welcome to Manhattan.