De novo genes and the "no new information" argument

[SelfSim]

'Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.' - supposedly by Richard Feynman.

Took an introduction to research class way back when. The instructor mentioned all of the areas of research/expertise of the science faculty. He got to the resident Philosopher of Science, and said something like "whatever it is that he does". Years later, when I was designer a class to help freshman to understand what science is, I ended up reading a good bit of that stuff. And I am a bit on Feynman's side as a result.

I think the challenge nowadays, is for scientific thinkers to devise a philosophy consistent with science's findings over say the last 50 years, (IMHO)?
The usefulness of doing so, would be to allow science to exist in a world of non-scientific, opinion based speculations.