The Difference between Science and "Science"

John Calvert of the Discovery institute has a piece in the Witchita Eagle defining science. Here is the relevant excerpt:

Quotation marks frame the term "science" because there are two kinds of science.
One kind of science is completely objective in its goal ("objective science"). It is purely theoretical and always open to criticism and the need to change its explanations when new evidence arises. It seeks to let the evidence dictate its explanations, not any bias.
This is the way most science is practiced, and this is the way it is explained to the public and to children in public schools. The real distinction between objective science and all religion is that objective science is theoretical, while religion is dogmatic.
The other kind of science is biased in its goal ("biased science"). Its ultimate goal is to infer only natural or material causes for the origin, existence and operation of all natural events and phenomena.

Note Calvert's definition turns things on their head. Apparently the way we have been practicing science since the time of Copernicus has been totally wrong. We have been extremely successful during that time frame, by restricting ourselves to material explanations for material phenomena but I guess it's all been for nothing! Throw your test tubes out the window and lets discuss how may angels can dance on the head of a needle shall we?
Something else just occured to me. Consider the last sentence:
"Its ultimate goal is to infer only natural or material causes for the origin, existence and operation of all natural events and phenomena." Somthing seems wrong there. Is he saying we are wrong for seeking natural explanations for phenomena he has defined as natural? On the other hand, why should we not seek natural explanations for natural phenomena?