I was just reading The Earth Encompassed: A History of the Environmental Sciences by Peter J. Bowler and he discuss whether or not the "new emphasis on observation" was the "foundation" of the scientific revolution.
The main case against this notion was that the study of the earth and its inhabitants did not experience dramatic improvement in explanatory power that we can associate with physics and astronomy, and that the biological sciences did not have a Galileo or Newton.
But there's no real answer posed as to why the biological sciences did not have their "godfather" during the renaissance, so if anybody had an answer or suggested reading for this question that'd be appreciated :)
During the Renaissance they lacked the instruments to provide the evidence needed to revolutionize the field. Though your inclusion of Newton in the question extends the timeline by about two hundred years, in which case there was a godfather of biological sciences in the person of Robert Hooke who pioneered the usage of microscopes and coined the term cell. If you're interested in this period I'd look more into the Royal Society. The Clockwork Universe is a good digestible history on the period. If you want historical fiction. Neal Stephenson's The Baroque Cycle is entertaining and well researched.
I haven't read this book so I'm not familiar with the argument. Do Linnaeus, van Leewenhoek and Darwin not count?