Should creationism be taught in schools?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.)

Two words - prove it.

When confined to current scientific laws, the only scientifically sound conclusion is that the universe had a beginning.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.)

I'll get the flat-earth theologians on the line so you can let them know they were right all along.

Yeah, that would make a lot of sense IF the guy who wrote that statement was referring to the earth being flat.  But he wasn’t. 

You’re becoming unreasonable in your discussions.  That’s how opedo started to spin out of control.  So be careful.

Let me introduce you to the person who penned the above statement: His name is Dr. Robert Jastrow. 

He is the director of Mount Wilson Observatory. 

He was also founder and director for twenty years of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

He is a world-renowned astrophysicist

He is also an admitted agnostic, so he has no reason to agree with theologians.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As for the energy, a vast amount of energy is stored in a vacuum, according to quantum mechanics (another theory we have more evidence for than we have that planes fly).

And quantum mechanics abides by the Laws of Thermodynamics.  It does NOT violate them.

--

We also get that random fluctuations happen from quantum machanics. So, given a large expanse of vacuum, and enough time, there will be a fluctuation which will condense the energy stored into matter, thus beginning a universe.

1st) “Condensing” vacuum energy into matter is STILL a conservation of energy.  It still stays within the Laws of Thermodynamics.   You’ve simply converted energy into matter.  You have created nothing.

2nd)  Your initial state of a large expanse of vacuum and time, means that you began with energy.  Space can not exist with the presence of energy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Fundamentally, you have a misunderstanding of the second law. The second law says that entropy will PROBABLY increase. It's not a definate thing at all.

We can discuss my “misunderstanding” in a moment, but first…

The 2nd Law allows for entropy to increase or stay the same, it NEVER allows it to decrease.  So, even if we take you definition that entropy will PROBABLY increase, the only other possibility is that entropy stays the same, but it can NEVER decrease. 

Are we in agreement on this point?

---

Who said anything about an initial state? When the expansion of the universe runs its course, we'll be left again with a great expanse of vacuum and time. From which (eventually) a new universe will condense. This creates a cyclic universe, which needn't have had a beginning at all.

What you are describing appears to be a DEcrease in entropy.   Is that what you are claiming?