Philosophers are still discussing the mind-body problem. In other words, there actually are legitimate philosophers who call themselves dualists and think that the mind is something more than the workings of matter. Some philosophers think there are moral absolutes while others are ethical relativists and some are something else. Apparently, several hundred years of debate hasn't resolved this issue either.
Recently (last century) the discipline of philosophy has spun off a subdiscipline known as the "History and Philosophy of Science." This is now a separate department in many universities.
We all have a pretty good idea about the meaning of "history" but philosophers can't agree on the meaning of "science." The attempt to define science goes under the name of the "demarcation problem." I've written about this quite a bit since I find it bizarre that philosophers can't reach agree on what they are studying.
I side with those philosophers who prefer a broad definition of science—the one that's more akin to "scientia" or the German word Wissenschaft. According to this view, science is a way of knowing based on evidence, rational thinking, and healthy skepticism. As long as you are employing this approach, you are engaging in a scientific way of knowing. This includes economists, physicians, and philosophers.
John Wilkins writes about accommodationism]. John seems to prefer a more restricted view of "science" that only covers what physicists, biologists, and chemists do when they are trying to find out things about the natural world. I'm not sure if he has a name for other ways of knowing and I'm not sure if he thinks they have been successful.1
He sees the demarcation problem as the problem of distinguishing between good science and bad science where bad science isn't science. That's what many articles in the book, Philosophty of Pseudoscience, are about. For example, intelligent design creationism isn't science according to John Wilkins' view and the views of many, but not all, philosophers.
I disagree. I think that what Bill Dembski and Michael Behe are doing is trying to develop a theory/model using evidence, rational thinking and healthy skepticism. In other words, they are attempting to use science as a way of knowing but they are doing it badly. Their evidence is flawed, their logic is flawed, and they are not being skeptical because they are blinded by their belief in gods. They aren't the only ones who do science badly—the ENCODE Consortium is another example—but we shouldn't say that everyone who does science badly is not doing science at all.
Here's John Wilkins describing his view of the demarcation problem. You can leave a comment on his blog at: Wilkins on demarcation.
1. If you use my broad definition of science then it's pretty clear that it has successfully produced real knowledge. It's also pretty clear that no other way of knowing has ever been successful in producing knowledge. (facts are not the same as knowledge)