Newton dun it.

Well, it is a tad bit more more complicated than that, it depends on what exactly you mean, but I assume that you mean it in the sense that the change in the humanities, in the philosophical, social and political thinking, in a way that later on triggered political changes like democracy.

If you read The Leviathan from Thomas Hobbes, you can already make out the major lines. Hobbes wrote it explicitly to challenge the Aristotelean, Scholastic line of thinking that dominated the era. He said political philosophy has a basis in phyics, and if Aristotle got physics, wrong, and Newton right, then political philosophy should also be changed. In Aristotelean physics, a thing can only move if something else moves it. (Quidquid movetur, ab alio movetur.) Newton showed that this is not necessary, things can move from their own inertia.

Hobbes took this concept of a self-moving object into political philosophy. He said people are also self-moved, by their own desires and fears, basically by their own will. The conclusions Hobbes draws from this are rather pessimistic, he assumes conflicting wills result in a war of all against all and only an absolute king can maintain some semblance of order.

Despite that, inventing the idea of a self-moving human being was of tremendous historical importance. Gone was the Aristotelean idea that all living beings are naturally directed towards certain natural goals or ends in their lives. Gone was the Christian idea that this natural goal for man is a drive towards God. This kind of directedness would be seen as an externally moved man and hence not quite compatible with Newtonian physics. Hobbes, by proposing the idea of the internally moved man, the man moved by his own will, basically invented the concept of human autonomy, invented the free man who chooses what he likes, and is not directed towards a goal by an external force. Things like human rights or liberalism would all follow from this.

Basically in the Aristotelean-Scholastic worldview everything is directed at a natural goal to its own, like a seed is directed toward the telos of becoming a tree, and basically it means if it moves towards its natural end, it is healthy and when not then that is not good, also it means that in this view also for humans making good decisions - in accordance with our natural end in life - is more important than making free decisions. Hobbes, based on Newtonian physics, by inventing the man who is moved by himself, by own will, and is thus not directed to any other goal but what he himself chooses, single-handedly invents (or maybe reinvents) the idea of human autonomy.

Of course later on Immanuel Kant spells it out much more directly. Hobbes has always been controversial a bit, regarding how he gets from inventing human autonomy to supporting absolute dictatorship. However, unlike Kant, Hobbes is the clear, explicit, conscious link between Newtonian physics and modern political philosophy.

Thus, Hobbes ' Leviathan shows how the Scientific Revolution, that began with Copernicus and led to Newton, kicked in the Enlightenment age.

(Note: this does NOT mean that the political philosophy of the Enlightenment was somehow "more scientfic" or "used the scientific method" any more than Scholastics did. Hobbes did not do a lot of science, simply liked the Newtonian idea of inertia, and used it as a parallel, as an example, but deeper into the book abandoned the parallel and said humans are moved by passions and desires, not actual, physical inertia. So it is better to see this simply as borrowing some concepts as parallels from contemporary scientists. It was not a terribly scientific philosophy, neither was Kants. Perhaps it would not be very wrong to see a lot of Enlightenment philosophy in a similar way how we see popular science fiction: lightsabres and blaster pistols are not science, they are just "sciencey" or fictions created by people who sort of like the idea of science and technology.)

Source: the very book, but I am really particular too Michael Oakeshott's interpretation of Hobbes: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/668