I think some of us might be talking past each other.
E.g., Kevin argued that:
The history of science is more important, in my opinion, than a degree in science. Most biologists have not even read Darwin’s works. Without an understanding of the origins of the things they study, how can they know what they are studying?
What we need here is context. Is an education in the history of science more important than an education in science? That completely depends on one's purpose. You cannot say that one is more important than the other unless you define the context.
For example, in discussing the cultural issues surrounding evolution, investigating the history of science might be beneficial in demonstrating to creationists that the goal of evolutionary theory really isn't to turn everyone into atheists. On the other hand, if a city is being hit with a new virus strain, a degree in science is going to do far more good for the city than an education in the history of science.