Very bad idea IMHO.
I think it sounds good...and more correct.
Why does it sound bad to you? Is it a God thing?
We are in total agreement here.
I would cut neither camp any slack whatsoever on the definition of science.
Just for grins, and tangentially related to the present discussion and the role of science, how do you deal with the following statement?
"First there was nothing; then it exploded"?
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.