You're pretty superior for someone who can't even type "double-blind experiment."
We have science textbooks. At my children's educational level, these focus on factual knowledge: algae and fungi, mammals and reptiles, rodents and ruminants, etc. We have books with experiments to illustrate basic concepts: freezing, melting, and boiling, for example.
Even at higher levels of science instruction, most instruction is simply (as an earlier poster mentioned) memorization-based. Learn the periodic table. Learn the classification of animals and plants. Learn the geologic properties.
Most "experimentation" in science classes is merely repetition. You know the water will boil when you heat it - "testing" the premise is simply a formality. You know what the heat or sound will do, if you've worked the equations correctly. You know how the rocks will react to various physical and chemical tests.
You'll notice that none of what I've mentioned - the basic content of a high school science education, and of a college class for a non-science major (in other words, most people) has anything to do with the origins of the universe, or the development of human and animal life as we currently observe it. The boiling point is the boiling point, whatever I think about evolution. The algae is not a fungus, and don't eat that mushroom, whether its qualities depend on natural or supernatural processes.
Yes, I am ignorant of the characteristics of a double-blind experiment (although I'm going to read that link, after I make a spaghetti sauce), but that was irrelevant to my degree in Business Management, and to my pre-maternity career in Life Insurance State and Municipal Premium Taxes and Regulatory Compliance. Funny how that turned out.
say what?