This is purely a value judgment, not really a scientific question. Another way to put this is: If we see changes in nature because of human activity, is that necessarily a bad thing?
There are a number of quantitative ways people try to answer this question in a place where we see human-caused ("anthropogenic") environmental changes. Has biodiversity been reduced? Is the ecosystem still providing the same number and quality of ecosystem services? Is there a loss of charismatic or valuable species? Is some culturally cherished place being affected? Can natural resource industries (e.g. fishing, logging, etc.) operate normally?
In addition, the two answers you gave are not mutually exclusive. Most healthy ecosystems are fairly resilient to environmental disturbances up to a point, but that doesn't mean those environmental disturbances are a good thing. Recognize, though, that "the resilience of nature" is an ecological metric, while "an affront to the natural order of things" is a value judgment.
Content will be erased after question is completed.