If the science improved and we were to start genetically altering our phenotype on any widespread basis, could we still define the results as evolution?
I would say yes. All you really need is a source of new genetic information and a selective pressure. The source of the "mutation" does not necessarily have to be
random and the selective pressure does not necessarily have to be
natural for the tenets of the Theory of Evolution to hold true.
Dogs evolved via Artificial Selection, although mucking with our genetics wouldn't really count as selection in itself, however, selection would still be a part of the process.
And genetic information can arise in ways other than the typical random mutation like through radiation, for example.
So, really, there's nothing there that I wouldn't consider to be
evolution.