The fact is that language and arts do NOT cause the brain to develop in the same ways, not even remotely the same regions, as sciences. Just because you believe they should doesn't mean they do.
Of course they don't! On the exact same note, the sciences don't develop the brain in remotely the same regions or ways as the arts! Some of these "right-brain" changes are critical to problem solving.
However, people are, in general, more compelled by the arts on a personal level.
I really am not convinced of this statement. I have a friend who studies quantum physics for fun. I know plenty of people that get into programming on their own. Ever met a Linux user? That's a hobby. I have learned more about statistics on my own to better analyize the statistics of RPG's and board games. I know literally hundreds of people,
personally, who have studied linguistics (which is not an art or part of the humanities) or language as a hobby. I've heard the statistic, and I believe it's true (from my own experiences), that about 1 in 10 individuals create their own languages. While this may seem like a creative endeavor, for a great many individuals, it's a highly analytical, and even mathematical thing. And trust me, when you get into phonetic sound changes, you're on par with algebra. I myself am very interested in Botany and Zoology, and I spend countless hours learning about spiders (this coming from someone who majored in English and History in order to avoid taking any more math). I'm not that unusual, either.
The fact of the matter is that tons of people are passionate about the sciences, and learn them as hobbies, but they don't learn a lot of the kinds of science taught in school, because most of
that science is
useless to most people. People learn about
useful science on their own, however, almost as much as people get involved with art. If there
is much of a difference between the two, I expect it's simply a matter that science is overtaught in school, where the arts and humanities are undertaught, or taught poorly. People are more likely to go out of their way to fill in gaps in their knowledge.
Students not given a required mandate of scientific material are likely to let it fall by the wayside, which is not as much the case with the arts.
I've seen absolutely no evidence that this is correct. Case in point: Latin. When Latin stopped being taught in school, Latin literacy dropped drastically, despite its utility on a great number of levels (learning many other languages more easily, the ability to read a wealth of Latin literature, religious associations [for Catholics], etc.)
I would put foreign language requirements that we aren't meeting far above creative writing in priority, and for several reasons. Not only do foreign languages enhance a world-view and encourage multiculturalism, they, also, have a separate impact on the brain--and the longer you don't learn a foreign language, the less likely it is you will be able to. I'm not saying there's a certain age you can't learn a language anymore, but it does become more and more difficult as your brain develops. Also, it's simply more useful to a larger portion of the population to know a second language.
I agree with all of this, though I do think that much of the way English and History are taught in our school systems is misguided and unfortunate, and believe that encouraging more creative writing in English would increase literacy more.