It is true that good Philosophy advances Science but it does not evolve into Science.
Good Science on the other hand establishes solid ground for new Inquiry which is then processed back by Philosophers before Scientist dare to take a shot at it.
Scientist came at the scene when the subject became trivial and the questions are clear enough to then apply the "thing", the methodology, not pure Reason.
It is a case to say it is easy to find stuff through observation when you know what you are looking for.
Philosophers on the other hand are always left with the new mess that pops up...
It saddens me the amount of stupidity currently coming from the fields of Science regarding claims to knowledge on the most 19 century Positivist style for funding purposes. (Philosophy is inconvenient to them because it exposes them)
Karl Popper comes to mind to remind them that more often than not what they come up with is a temporary consensus until Natural Philosophy gives them something to chew at that is easily digestible.
Now tell me why do we have to put up with these ignoramus for thousands of years?
These guys turned History upside down!
Cowboys I say!
PS - Their campus is so far off when it comes to consistent reasoning that even sophists like William Lane Kraig have an easy shot at them.