The researcher in the classical philosophies perhaps does not chance upon an intellectual atmosphere suitable for learning, as he finds in Bacon's philosophy. And despite the fact that the ancient Greeks had clear and bold theories in the fields of logical, intellectual thinking, but they cannot be taken but as mere distinguished introductions by way of preliminary conceptual works; they were not philosophy of science as understood nowadays. The relation between philosophy and science was not clear enough to them. Their philosopher sometimes dealt with philosophy and sometimes dealt with science, with no distinguishing is made between them. Their unique genius did not help them to realize any successful work or reach any scientific deductive generalization. They lacked sound methodology of thinking that would help them to explore and understand the laws of nature. If the philosophy of the ancient empiricists comprised some aspects that might be considered belonging to the empirical science, such as the theories of the origin of universe or the nature of matter, the ancient empiricists had no clear concept of the empirical science; they always affected by the intellectual ideologies, whilst Bacon's theory of science was not affected by any ideology that would restrict the active scientific research.

Bacon perceived that when a philosopher abandons the empirical observation as a source for the reality then he is but in a short distance from the mysticism. This made him corroborate repetitive observations and experiments. Bacon considers mysticism the most dangerous of the scientific research's enemies. When the mysticism and the theoretical knowledge arose at the hands of Pythagoras, the classical metaphysics started playing its role of impeding the advancement of learning. We clearly find that with the Eliatics who had decided that the world is static and denied the evolution and the movement. In spite of the advent of great philosophers of nature (such as Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus), but the science harming ways gradually started to dominate intellect. At first, the doubt wave of the Sophists dominated, whereof they went more to study the method of knowing what we already know than to exert effort for collecting new knowledge. Then there was the interest of Socrates in ethics. Plato came to disregard the world of sense preferring the world of pure intellect that he, by himself, created for himself. And with Aristotle, came the belief that the objective is the major idea in science. Thereafter, there was a period of stagnation and the old folk myths gradually dominated again. All along the middle ages of Europe, none practiced philosophy but clerics; therefore there was no room for empiricism in the Scholasticism. If there was a number of thinkers who bravely tried to defend the empiricism, (such as Roger Bacon, William of Ockham), then they were saturated with the theological methods of thinking to the extent that they might not be compared to the empiricists of the preceding or the late eras. Thus, the natural philosophy did not enjoy, all along these eras, the strength and independence experienced by the natural philosophy of Bacon.

Bacon's theory of science depends on the inductive method, which entirely differs from the induction of Aristotle.

Aristotle did not intend by induction to start from particulars, i.e. sensory facts, and then end with the general issue, so that the sensory facts are justifications for such general decision. Yet he intended by induction to start from the general issue or decision and then seeks for particulars to prove and confirm it. Then it is proof more than it is induction.

The induction of Bacon neither brings general statistic in standard form to become a method of syllogism nor depends on intellectual anticipation that aims at proving previously believed issue and then goes to the reality seeking for positive evidences.

Bacon's inductive methodology is but planning to practice learning. He starts from sensory experiences and ends with intellectual deductions. He requires collecting empirical natural history, and gradually advances through precise observations to formulate general laws.

Bacon's inductive method pays no attention to the general precedent intellects of mind, and does not submit to such information that directly comes from senses. It travels around the various fields of sciences without any consideration to what is called (Axioms).

The laws derived from the inductive methodology of Bacon are derived from experiment and test, lean on senses and are determined by intellect through seeking final decision from the nature. Thereafter everything which is not in harmony with them shall be rejected and set aside. Bacon's methodology does not rely on collecting positive samples only, yet it pays attention to the negative ones. And there is no measure for the feasibility of the science according to the inductive methodology of Bacon but its usefulness and activity in the practical fields.

The scientific discoveries were previously made through chance or trail and error, until Bacon came to put the basis for the sound methodology of scientific research. He wanted such methodology to be a procedure if followed by the researcher then he is confident to reach the fact. This Bacon's developed methodology depends on making precise experiments and scientifically observing the phenomena of nature, and this is exactly the basis of the contemporary scientific research methodology.

Bacon's inductive methodology was a great leap in the history of the development of scientific methodologies. The theory of science with Bacon, whether in its positive or in its negative aspect, is like (founding the basis for true example of the world in the mind, as it is in fact, not as it is deformed by the idols of man's intellect… this may no be achieved but by skillfully anatomizing the world)… Such objectivity Bacon called for is the most significant feature of the contemporary scientific research and can be found in the theories of science in the most prominent contemporary philosophies.

Bacon opposed the dogmatic way of presenting science by the ancient people as if they reached the absolute fact. He observes that science, as long as it is still incomplete, should not be presented to the mass as it is complete. This relativity of assumptions and contingency of scientific theories and laws is acknowledged by, in addition to Bacon, every contemporary scientist and researcher.

Bacon placed new criterion for science which is its ability to fruit works, and put the metaphysical issues aside. He absolutely believed in science as a means to improve the human's living, and this is the most significant feature of the contemporary philosophical and scientific ideology.

Hence, we have the right to announce that our acknowledgement of Descartes as the father of the modern philosophy is not quite justice, for when we date the modern philosophy to Descartes that means an implied acknowledgement that the first leader of the inductive logic and the founder of the Empiricism is not a modern philosopher, although Bacon was born before Descartes, his philosophical works were presented before the presentation of Descartes philosophy and he died before Descartes as well. Therefore there is a need to revise the issue of Descartes' paternity of the modern philosophy, not for the purpose of underestimating his philosophical position and his standing, but to direct the lights and pay attention to Bacon and his philosophy which in any case is not scholastic.