No. I have noticed I have been born into a time and place where words, definitions, and 'reality' were already twisted before I got here. For example, I have a copy of the 1828 Webster's dictionary. I have compared many common words to the current collegiate dictionaries using the name Webster. It is flat out one of the most eye opening 'scientific' exercises I have ever conducted.
So, what I am really asking is: who owns the definition of 'science'? Who decides what 'science' means? Did the word 'science' mean the same thing in 1810 as it did in 1610? If not, why not? Why is its meaning today so dearly protected by the vested interests in that community? Why do they fear so intensely much the 'competition' of I.D.?? It is the fearful reaction, not to mention everything else, that lends so much credibility to I.D. for many. You'd think they'd understand that. But no ... the fear is palpable.
I notice, over and over and over, is that how science itself is defined seems to be a profoundly upsetting question. Just why is that? What is the fear behind all the upsetness. And above all, if 'science' were so robust as is (esp T.o.E), why is it (another question that gets little attention) that I.D., a 'non scientific' idea, gets so much traction?
At the very minimum logic itself would dictate something must be really wrong w/ 'science' that so many find it so unacceptable.
But no.... that conclusion is 'not logical', or such is the case being implied in your post.