This does not mean that any individual has the right to do whatever they would like to any other individual, but rather that humanity as a whole can make its own decisions without impunity, which robs humanity of their dignity (Ramsey, qtd. In Verhey, 292). Thisties directly back to Verhey's thesis that "the fundamental perspective from which we interpret our responsibilities is critically important to seeing what those responsibilities are" (Verhey, 292). Even without surety of a God or other overriding moral imperative, the perspective that neither of these things does or even can exist is a dangerous one. In this sense, the concept of "playing God" actually refers to a perspective -- a healthy one, according to the author (and with which it is difficult to disagree) of caution and hesitancy in performing all the we as a species are capable of. That is, the mere usage of the phrase "playing God" reflects a belief in a greater responsibility that we bear to the world, and such an attitude cannot be but a decent check on advancement. Verhey takes a much more definitive stance regarding his next perspective on what it means to play God. He reflects on what it would mean to "playfully cast ourselves in the role of the creator," speaking explicitly about a Judeo-Christian view of God, and even referring specifically to the stories of the Bible (Verhey, 293). With this view in mind, Verhey insists that "human beings are created and called to exercise dominion over the world" (Verhey, 293). He therefore concludes that human creativity can extend to its full reaches without worry.

This argument is more than a little disingenuous, and not only for its use of a very selective dogma and its feigned ignorance of the broader social meaning of "playing God" which Verhey has already...

These, it is true, are the major flaws of his argument in this passage, but one could even stoop to his level to question his reasoning. Man is called into creation in Genesis; shortly after, God forbids Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Thus, there are obviously some things which God intended to keep entirely for himself, whether those motives were selfish or for the good of mankind and the rest of the universe. Not only is Verhey's reading of the Bible inappropriate to the argument as he has this far laid it out, it also ignores a great deal of information about God in the Bible. I am not saying that the Bible is necessarily true, but if Verhey is going to insist that it is, he cannot be so selective in his reading. This perspective on playing God is more dangerous than useless; it perpetuates the idea that man has been given complete dominion of the world through his natural faculties. Reading just slightly further in the Bible reminds us that, according to that story, taking our knowledge a step too far removed humanity from Paradise and forced us to toil for our bread -- perhaps playing God is not as fun as Verhey makes it sound.
Verhey does admit that the specific claims he makes regarding genetic engineering came far too quickly, especially given the overview of the "playing God" concepts that he provides in the essay. One must wonder, then, why he made these claims in the first place. It is clear that Verhey has the questioning attitude -- and the ability to recognize when restraint would have been desirable -- that Ramsey equates with the attitude that wonders about "playing God." It is Verhey's lack of willingness to employ that attitude to practical ends that is…