Science... is really just another religion as far as I'm concerned, it's built up on faith at its very core because ultimately we're faith-based creatures.
Your premise here is extremely
faulty, frankly kinda offensive, and the conclusion you draw on it is more so. As to the video:
-"You must have faith that your observations are accurate." This... is a very rocky start, as it appears they've never heard of peer review, replication, or accounting and adjusting for bias. One could argue that we're taking it on faith that all of humanity isn't having the same hallucination, but... no. No need to take anything on faith, just recognize that accepting observations that match all available evidence is the only way we can ever know anything about anything. Either our observations are accurate, and we've made progress, or they're not, and we've lost nothing compared to the other route.
-Descartes as their only source on epistemology and information theory? He's... a touch out of date.
-Euclidean geometry, their example of "incorrect" observations... actually "correct within limited circumstances."
-Einstein acting "unscientifically" and trying to disprove quantum theory? Uhh, actually the heart of science. Trying to disprove things is how we know they're probably true.
-Their core argument was that science and religion can learn from each other. They completely failed to support the idea that science can learn from religion in any way at all.
So... yeah, your ultimate "that's all I have to say about that" evidence is... pretty weak and unconvincing. And, like you, makes the assumption that human beings cannot operate without faith - which I guess makes me inhuman through no fault of my own.
As to the larger question of "playing God": I'm in the "define it" camp. In particular, you'll have to define it in such a way that it does not include things we've already been doing for centuries.