The great questions of philosophy on the nature of human knowledge that occupied the great and unknown thinkers from the Greeks up to the nineteenth century were largely answered by scientific research in the twentieth century, even though tremendous amounts of work still will need to be done. No proof for Platonic ideas was found, that misleading basis of Christian philosophy, no proof for the Biblical genesis was found. And yet, there are dogmatists that are not to be refuted by any of the great work of Enlightenment and modern science.
They justify their absurd rejection of all elementary proof by their finding that no conclusive evidence for all unexplained questions is yet found, and adhere to their conclusive explanation despite the complete absence of any proof. These Creationists postulate their a priori criterion of conclusiveness and see its conclusiveness as its inner and sufficient proof. It haunts my mind to see the absence of reason reach rational certainty in such manner, but honestly there is no arguing with such dogmatists.
The complete workings of human knowledge has not fully been mapped, and much work remains to be done, but the unfilled gaps are not to be taken as proof for its possible shortcoming. The shortcoming should be measured by the irreconcilability of its proof and the contradicting findings only. On top of that, its measured shortcomings are not per se to be taken for its invalidity, but are what they are: shortcomings to be further investigated to proof their soundness.
Given the current state of scientific findings, philosophy can already be understood as no longer a science in quest for the principles of human understanding. Instead, modern philosophy is more than ever a teaching of ethics only. It is here that zealots and believers still are in full right to claim their territory as long as it does not interfere with science. To seek meaning in life is still in our times part of the great questions of modern philosophy.