All it is, is an alternative creation story - if there’s no God, you need to make up a story of your own to fulfil a basic need of knowing where you came from...
Nonsense. One stems from evidence and the other stems from revealed knowledge. That revealed knowledge is less reliable is attested by the existence of some 4,300 world religious and some 30,000+ Christian denominations. If revealed knowledge was accurate there would be only one religion, upon which all could agree.
As for evidence, we all have the same facts -we interpret them differently.
Nice try, but not all interpretations are of equal explanatory value. Some interpretations spring readily from the facts, others have to be forced. That is the role of creation "science" and other forms of religious apologetics -- to force facts to fit religious belief, no matter how they have to be distorted or twisted, and how many have to simply be ignored, in the process.
Science, as it stands today, is a very complex weave of facts and interpretations (theories). If you start to force alternative interpretations where they don't fit, you end up with too many loose threads.
As an example, to force the facts to "fit" a young earth, the decay constant if often accelerated by YECers. This ignores the fact that radioactive decay gives off heat, and 4.5 billion years of radioactive decay compressed into 6,000 years would have released enough heat in that short time period to cook the earth.
No, some interpretations of the facts simply don't work and no amount of twisting and distortion will make them work.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.