The thing that makes definitively answering your question difficult is this: there is no universally accepted criteria for what science is. After all, the question of what science is is a contested one - the philosophy of science is a large field and it discusses this question at length. The answers in the philosophy of science are diverse, ranging from the obvious - applying experiments to test theories, and vice versa - to Paul Feyerabend's famous argument in his book Against Method that, in science, anything goes.

Additionally, as your quotes actually do suggest in total, science gradually congealed into its current state rather than arriving fully-formed as an idea in the head of one person - there isn't one person who invented science as we know it. And so, depending on your definition of science, you could make arguments for Galileo or Aristotle or Kepler or Bacon, who each brought us closer to our modern image of science. Some argue that science is fundamentally inductive, and so might see Bacon's induction as particularly important. Others might see science as fundamentally about wanting to understand the natural world in depth, and would go back to Aristotle, whose methods weren't quite scientific in the modern sense, but who certainly tried to understand the natural world in depth.

By the way, if your question is slightly more linguistic in nature than philosophical, the term 'scientist' seems to have been coined surprisingly late in the piece - in 1834 by William Whewell - and previously to 1834, a scientist would probably have called themselves a 'natural philosopher'.