Don't take this the wrong way, but you sound like a philosophy major who has only had Bio 101 and has never been in a lab. Science is very specific. It requires hypotheses that can be falsified upon experimentation. There is no deduction. It it not even technically induction because it never makes statements of fact. Science does not exist without evidence. Also, some of those people you mentioned aren't even scientists. Genuine scientific fields didn't exist at the time of Galileo - he's more appropriately an astronomer or a mathematician. Newton was clearly a mathematician. Darwin was a naturalist whose hypothesis lead to the development of the science of Biology. Philosophy certainly influences the way scientists think about Reality and Life in a more global sense, and science certainly helps philosophers form more realistic premises, but because their methods and goals are different they are different subjects and should be treated as such.
I'm a philosophy major who's never taken a Science class beyond the 101 level, but I came to the conclusion that Philosophy in itself is not the answer to any problem. It fits perfectly in as a tool in a larger set that helps answer questions with a certitude but cannot go beyond that. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Philosophy's best use is in clarifying language and nothing more.