It will be in our own interest to consider the consequences of our actions, but "violating nature"? Nah.
Let's re-phrase it and take the religious connotation out.
Evolution has been at work optimizing certain things for their environment for a lot of time (dependent on whether you want to count from life or homo sapiens, billions of years to hundreds of thousands of years).
Now, as has been pointed out, there have been mass extinctions of species in the past, even driven by certain species themselves - that's evolution at work, discarding a solution, to be replaced by another one.
Unlike most animals, we're capable of understanding this mechanism - we are capable of realizing we're cutting out own branch, and we're capable of realizing when we wreck conditions for others.
Does it follow from there that we should behave differently - or is 'we're ultimately just animals, so there's no special 'duty' here' an equally valid option?
Likewise, do we believe to be able to do 'better' than evolution at managing ecosystems (and ultimately our own habitable space) using technology, or does the long development time of the evolutionary solution give it advantages we can't properly appreciate?
So far, our record at managing ecosystems long-term is rather bleak, there's plenty of African desert that used to be fertile and usable lands before the 'primitive' natives (which utilized essentially the solution provided by evolution) were pushed to use technological farming. For which nature, well, didn't care much.
In other words, eon-long evolution provides some default solutions to problems on this planet. Technology enables us to discard them and replace them by different solution. Is it generally preferable for our own long-term survival to stay close to evolution or are we better off doing going far from it?
I guess that's pretty much the same question with the religion taken out.