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?
Bad bet. My plumber doesn't even have to address the issue. He's got plumbing down to a science, and that's what I pay him for. I don't expect him to tell me the earth is 4.5 billion years old and my ancestors were apes either before he fixes the problem. But I guarantee you this: If there were no such thing as intelligent design I would have neither a plumber nor pipes that needed repair.
And another thing, wiseass: If I were to question my plumber at length as to what he ultimately considered to be the cause of the clog in my pipes, you just might lose your bet. I don't think he would be running for "Origin of Species" for an answer. Do you? Unless, of course, it happened to be a rare species of corn dog.