Is science education necessary?

The more I’ve thought about it, the more it has become obvious that the general science education, the state of which so concerns some scientists, is a ludicrous proposition. John Derbyshire and Charles Murray, neither of whom are known as major religious enthusiasts, have made strong cases that one size fits all is a totally ineffective model for a variety of subjects for a variety of reasons. A future beautician doesn’t need physics nor does a plumber require any knowledge of biology. As Sherlock Holmes, a literary creation of no small scientific bent, once said, to him it makes no difference at all if the sun rotates around the earth or if the earth rotates around the sun.

So, here’s a question for the science enthusiasts. What is the positive case for science education in the public schools? Why is it necessary? How does it further actual science in any way? And why should it take precedence over various subjects that aren’t presently taught and which every student will need in the course of their lives? Why are there courses on Geology and Life Sciences and none on Taxes, Budgets, or Investments?