Well sure. But who is anyone to know whether we have the competence or objective basis to define science as exclusive of God when science has no competence in the matter to begin with? And for God's sake don't bring my plumber into this. We're dealing with the fundamental assumptions inherent in anyone who undertakes to understand objective reality. This whole issue is not nearly as intrusive to general scientific pursuits as either side cracks it up to be.
Scientists aren't competent to define "science"? Are you sure this is the argument you want to make?
Of course not - what you want to do is conflate the act of defining "science" with somehow defining "God". Sorry Fester - science is defined as the study of the material world. Anything beyond that is outside the purview of science, by definition. Unless, of course, you'd like to introduce "God" onto the stage as a wholly material being - then you can make "God" a part of science. But I don't think that'll play too well from the pulpit.
And for God's sake don't bring my plumber into this. We're dealing with the fundamental assumptions inherent in anyone who undertakes to understand objective reality.
And the fundamental assumptions inherent in anyone who undertakes to understand objectively real plumbing. You call your plumber and report a clogged drain. I hate to say it, but my bet is that your plumber has a priori ruled out the supernatural, including God, as the cause of your clog. So how come you aren't complaining to him about the atheistic nature of his profession and the assumptions therein?