Why teach science?

In the 1850's Herbert Spencer argued that the teaching of science should be a major priority in everyone's education. John Dewey at the turn of the century was pushing for education that involved kids in experiential exercises that improved their logic and problem solving abilities (scientific method). Today science falls somewhere around the importance of learning a foreign language in most schools. You need 3 credits to graduate.
My doctoral dissertaion was about attitudes of elementary teachers toward teaching science. The research I did back then (late 1980s) indicated that most elementary teachers were afraid of and avoided the subject. I would estimate that over the many years I  have taught middle school science I have had at most 20% of the students that are truly interested in science. Could this be a result of the fear or apathy towards science that most kids experience in elementary school or is it the nature of the subject?
I Googled "educational importance of science" and got some blogs reiterating Dewey's notion of the value is in the process of how to think and some articles on how science education has created the emerging economies of India and China, so countries need to get behind it or fall behind. Back in the 60s (when I was in elementary school and science was being shoved on to the plates of our little minds by very poorly prepared teachers because the Russians had a satellite flying overhead) the image of our competion was of the brightest young Russian scientific minds housed together in schools with the best resources. I'm not sure if that was the case. A brief search of the internet gave some indication that there was a lot of economic resources put into science education in Russia in the 60s, but I couldn't find how that impacted the average elementary school-aged Russian kid. My personal experience is that when kids who are interested in science are in classes together they feed off of each other. When they are spread among the general non-interested student population, they often tend to hide their interest - especially girls. By high school some streaming by ability happens and I have worked in middle schools which have advanced science classes for the interested, but the general rule is one size fits all - which obviously doesn't seem to fit with the U.S. education department's theme of "No Child Left Behind". Or maybe it does. No child gets left behind, but nothing is going to be done to assist the curious and talented in getting ahead. Of course there are loads of criticisms of this huge waste of taxpayer money, so I'll save that rant.
Next week I start my last 9 weeks teaching and deliver (possibly) my last professional development presentation. What will be the value in the science I wil try to teach? 8th grade starts debates on environmental issues and preparing a PowerPoint to support a  foundation they feel could make a positive difference in the world. Sixth grade plows ahead preparing for their science fair. (Dewey would be proud of the individual projects and efforts at making sense out of data collected under some attempt at controlled conditions.) The 7th grade begins exploration of our fragile planet and will begin to prepare PowerPoints on world shattering events that could (in most cases) destroy or irreparably change our lives forever. Generally subject area enthusiasm is high in 6th and 8th grade. Seventh grade I battle a peer culture of apathy for school in general and a group that is quick to laugh at effort. I wonder if ideas related to the possible impending doom of our planet will send them farther into their adolescent world encaged by their desire for peer approval.