Interesting analogy.
You're right, of course. ID proponents are arguing openly for a change in the definition of science. That is discussed in the Dover decision as well.
Whether or not that change in definition is warranted is one, if not the, key question in this whole debate.
"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Exactly how does this definition of science particularly address the concept of intelligent design or lack thereof? Why should someone need to change, or expand, this definition in order to interpret the presence of organized matter as a product of intelligent design?