I don't talk about who needs to make the contrast. I say that without natural you cannot have supernatural and cannot make the contrast per se. Does theist have only supernatural? If so, it does not make any sense. In other words, without natural one can hardly talk about supernatural, because what does it even mean in such context.

As for what "informs us about the nature of reality" -- yes, theistic explanation provides such information, but the question still remains if that information is correct (I say it's not). Plus, I don't see any utility in that particular explanation. Well, it may be a source of sense of personal security, but that's basically it. I'm more for truth, no matter how it may turn out.