How does the teaching of biology differ from teaching physics? Respected teachers, I have this question for quite some time and I need your ideas.  

When we teach physics we can have a lot of brainstorming sessions and adopt the "scientific method"  ( Observation, Hypothesis, Experiments, Conclusion ).  I do this regularly in my physics class. Recently I was asked to take a course in elementary biology. I find that most biology books are filled with facts instead of stimulating questions, observations and experiment opportunities which I find in good physics books. In biology, we find less opportunity for real demonstration and conducting experiments-  e.g. how to do an experiment on the digestive system as clear as we do to demonstrate and understand Newton's laws in physics. You might suggest using models but all models are inaccurate. On the other hand Netwon's laws can be directly observed without aid or model ( though that is also possible).           

So my question is 

1- Fundamentally how the two teachings differ, and what could be the most appropriate and meaningful strategy for teaching biology that keeps the students motivated and curious to know living beings?

2- Can we still use scientific methods as we do in physics? (But I see a narrow opportunity for observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion.)  

I think someone who is experienced in the teaching of biology, as well as physics, might explain how he/she shifts strategy when moving from one to another. 

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions.  

Edit: 
By 'fact' I mean rote learning. You just remember what is Newton's third law without bothering to know how Newton discovered it and how in general scientists discover and invent things. I am talking about the lowest level in Bloom's taxonomy. If that is the best learning experience in science, we could not have come where we are today. In my class, I prefer Questioning, inquiry and challenging the set notions instead of accepting and forcing things as Gospel truth. In my opinion, all famous scientists work like this. Galileo did this and was punished by Church but was ultimately proved right.
See Eric Lander's introductory biology OCW course lecture videos for a refreshing take on biology from someone who was trained as a mathematician. The way Prof. Lander (and likely many others) teaches biology is similar to the 'hard sciences' (chemistry and physics), but the history of the science takes a larger role than it usually does in (say traditional introductory) physics and math courses. 

Maybe a reason for this is that the ways that important biological processes take place are way too complicated for us to easily derive them from Newton's laws and some calculus, and so to bring people to speed in basic cell biology, one really needs to rely on a large amount of collected observations on non-intuitive, less widely observed phenomena than one does in classical physics to begin doing meaningful studies. One way to do this, is to just say such-and-such is the way things happen, now memorize it. Another approach however, is to explain how the existing models came to be. The second takes (much) more work.

At the most basic level, in either case one tests whether the conclusions/predictions that come from the models are consistent with what is observed, so the distinguishing of intro biology and intro physics on this point seems artificial. A real fundamental difference between the two again is that the type of things which are discussed in the intro biology course are much more complicated than those covered in a basic physics course, and so one must rely on more 'hand-waving' or historical references at certain points. To quote the famous mathematician von Neumann, 'If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is.'