It's a tradeoff.
I agree it's inefficient for everybody to learn advanced science; but basic science? Gravity for Newton's sake? Don't people spend around 10 years going through basic education? What are they learning in those 10 years if they can't even understand a tiny bit of how the world that we live in functions?
Also, if you have read the article it's not just a failure to understand gravity, there was a severe lack of ability to apply logic (even by the TA that was teaching logic!). Well that says something about the education system.
I would argue that everyone should learn at least the basics of science, and appreciate the fact that this marvelous civilization that we are living in is shaped by the very science that they don't fully comprehend.
What people should learn is the scientific process, how does science advance, how do we know the things we know. And they should learn how much we owe the scientific method, people should know that if not for science we would still be freezing, starving and dying of easily preventable diseases, that the comfortable lives we live today is a result of scientific thinking.
And "God Strikes Back" parts in 'The Genius of Darwin' documentary: Many schools, public funded to a large extent, dump evolution in favor of 'Creationism'. A science teacher, who was interviewed believes that the Earth is less than a ten thousand years old, because God said so in that holy book.
I didn't claim that God said so. I just quoted the science teacher that was interviewed. Go watch the video and wonder why Governments and parents are allowing these kind of morons to teach science.
Moreover my point was not about how to interpret a particular event described in a particular book; far from it. I was expressing outrage at the fact that a science teacher would believe that the Earth is just a few thousand years old, throwing all the science in the dust bin. More importantly he is teaching the same thing to children and is getting away with it.
PS: through the revealed preference of coming into the defense of the book, though I didn't find faults with it, you gave out a lot about why you made the comment. But I'm going to pass over it.
PS: You can't claim to pass over something while talking about it in a PS.
Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Age-Ahead-Jane-Jacobs/dp/14000623...
"We've arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."