That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.
Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.
Strawman. Science is not about "getting rid of god". It's about looking at the evidence, and seeing where it leads.
Genesis is considered incorrect not because "god is in it", but because there is a lack of evidence to support the story.
Polonium halos prove the Earth is young though. It's suppressed because they want God out of the picture. True origin has a whole thesis about the halos, along with rebuttals to scientists who say that it's nonsense.
This Polonium halos idea is new to me. Did a little search on Wikipedia and found the following:
"Robert V. Gentry studied halos which appeared to have arisen from Po-218 rather than U-238 and concluded that solid rock must have been created with these polonium inclusions, which decayed with a half-life of 3 minutes. They could not have been formed from molten rock which took many millennia to cool (the standard theory) because polonium decays in a few minutes. This is taken by creationists as evidence that the Earth was formed instantaneously (Gentry 1992).
Critics of Gentry, including Thomas A. Baillieul (Baillieul 2005) and John Brawley (Brawley 1992), have pointed out that Po-218 is a decay product of radon, which as a gas can be given off by a grain of uranium in one part of the rock and migrate to another part of the rock to form a uraniumless halo. Apparently a large number of radon atoms are caught or absorbed at a particular point. This has not been proved experimentally, but is supported by the fact that Gentry's "polonium halos" are found along microscopic cracks in rocks that also contain uranium halos (Wakefield 1988).
Gentry's work has been continued and expanded by the Radioactivity and the Age of the Earth (R.A.T.E.) project that was operating between 1997 and 2005 (Wieland 2003). However, Collins (1997), Wakefield (1988) and others have repeatedly offered rebuttals of the radiohalo evidence for a young Earth in peer-reviewed publications."
There is also a link on creation geophysics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_geophysics
All this raises a question that I am still trying to resolve. That is, why should theists feel threatened by advances in science? If the advances show that a given theistic understanding is incorrect, why not adopt the new information and go on with the work of the church to take care of widows and orphans?