Sorry, DC, but I'm not going to agree to a new definition of science. If you and Dembski want to pursue this endeavor, you've got a few hundred years of a very successful definition of science to overcome and hundreds of thousands of contemporary scientists to persuade.
Of course the current definition is successful. The point is that it is not necessarily all inclusive. At some point, it won't be just Dembski--it will be the preponderance of scientists, because they will eventually persuade themselves based on their own inability to resolve their own questions.
You didn't mention whether the problem demonstrated by the 2nd chess board illustration piqued even a bit of curiosity?