This is more of a question than an assertion --

It seems to me that Burt was only partially right in asserting that
evolution lies at the core of modern biology. It seems to me that
all/most/much of modern science shares a common core of data and theory
that is inconsistent with the young-earth version of scientific [sic]
creationism.

For example, the same principles that underlying carbon dating or dating
of rocks by measuring the prevalence of radioactive elements and their
by-products also underly much of physics and chemistry. To dispute one is
to dispute all.

It really seems a magical world view: you flip the light switch and
magically there is light -- magically, since the fissioning of atoms to
produce heat to produce steam to spin turbines is inexplicable in a way
that is consistent with the universe being only 6,000 years old.

dale goble
moscow