Agree. Children's "science" books today are that way too: "Grossology", "Oh, Yuck!", "Totally Gross Experiments and Activities" to name a few....
Even the ones that are not hit-you-on-the-head scatological are still, as you say, trying to be funny and engaging but in a patronizing way.
Perhaps I am not the target audience but I preferred young science books that made you feel like you were learning real science — learning about the chemistry of plastics for example. The science wasn't a footnote to the experiment, it was the reason for the experiment.
Even the ones that are not hit-you-on-the-head scatological are still, as you say, trying to be funny and engaging but in a patronizing way.
Perhaps I am not the target audience but I preferred young science books that made you feel like you were learning real science — learning about the chemistry of plastics for example. The science wasn't a footnote to the experiment, it was the reason for the experiment.
Mae and Ira Freeman's science books for kids were great for younger readers. Kenneth Swezey's books. The classic "Golden Book of Chemistry" is a little slick, but still good (https://www.academia.edu/37919681/The_Golden_Book_Of_Chemist...).
Or maybe I just preferred the presentation of the older books...