"Science is not a philosophical system, it is just science. In particular, it does not have any meaning beyond itself. For example, the word Darwinism is normally used for attempts to transfer science into judgments of quality and moral justification - utterly unscientific, and usually driven by personal motives."

You're right, my phrasing was poor and I agree science is not so much a system of philosophy, but very closely engaged with scientific philosophy; indeed it can be difficult to find a line of demarcation between the two. I was seeking to distance the philosophy of science from the scientific method as a subject for discussion but phrased it clumsily. In this respect although science is not strictly a philosophic system, you can't be a scientist unless you address some serious philosophical issues.

Science is a system of enquiry with certain methodologies that are designed to study the truth. How do we arrive at these methods? When designing a programme of research, an experiment or gathering data how can we be sure we are not subject to bias, that our results are reflections of our own subjective reasoning or expectations? How do we interpret these results as objectively as possible?

This is one area where the philosophy comes in, as we seek to understand the nature of the common reality we all share. There are several philosophies within science (the wikipedia page on science is a reasonable introduction), and indeed philosophies within individual scientific disciplines and these are often influenced by the work of thinkers outside of our individual areas of expertise.

This is one major reason why creationists can never engage with science on equal terms; they don't have to question even the most basic assumptions of their belief system. Even the question of authorship of their primary source of information is beyond questioning as the literalists believe it is the word of god. So the very act of questioning is not in their nature. They might comment "but we're questioning your system of enquiry and the results" and they are, but they do so from a position in which they are already convinced they are right and everyone else is wrong. EVERYONE.

So even though early scientists approached the study of geology and palaeontology from a creationist viewpoint, slowly they realised the evidence did not add up and changed their views. They asked themselves difficult and searching philosophical questions and in the end decided to keep working to answer those questions rather than take someone else's word for the nature of reality, and modern science was born.

No philosophy, no science.