It is indeed a very bad idea to re-define what science actually is, and it's something we're seeing far too much of nowadays. I've mentioned before that ID adopts the rhetoric of science, but has none of the actual properties of a scientific theory: it explains nothing, it predicts nothing, it lacks openness or heuristic value, and can be neither proven nor falsified. ID, to quote John Derbyshire (and I hope you all read his superb evisceration of ID in National Review back in February) is a critique, not a theory.
I would say the exact same thing, except about evolutionists.