Well, the Bible portrays a God who created a universe which doesn't exist. In order to believe in the Bible, they have to believe in that God; in order to believe in that God, they have to believe in that universe. It's not clear why they have to believe in the Bible, but it's obviously very important to them.
I think it gets a little vague when we claim to analyze something (glimmers of light) that took thousands or millions of years to reach us.
And yet statements about the universe based on looking at the universe are somewhat more likely to be reliable than statements based on ignoring it.
I believe that book contains all I need to know concerning how to live my life to please God ...
By performing animal sacrifice?
You are to slaughter the young bull before the Lord ... You are to wash the internal organs and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord.
... how to relate to others ...
By hating your entire family?
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
... to manage finances ...
By complete fiscal imprudence?
Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? ... Take therefore no thought for the morrow ...
Do you do any of this stuff? OK, at least tell me you don't eat bacon.
Much of what passes for science today is actually atheism - a public establishment of it. That's the only thing (U.S.) creationists are attempting to stifle. Not necessarily in a religious interest, but in a constitutional interest.
It's mighty good of you to stick up for the Constitution. I particularly admire your relentless struggle to have the words IN GOD WE DON'T TRUST removed from our currency. The Constitution is sacrosanct, not least the clause forbidding Congress to establish irreligion ...
... oh, wait, it seems we don't live in Opposite World.
I'm not sure you said what you intended to say here, but if Nature were as easy to read as a book it wouldn't have taken so long for science to discover all the things it finally laboriously discovered.
On the other hand, if your book was as easy to read as nature, then Christians would have achieved the same degree of unanimity on questions of doctrine that scientists have achieved on such questions as "is the Earth young or old?"; "are we really descended from filthy monkey-men?" and that all-time favorite "are creationists a bunch of amusing loonies?"
Also nothing to do with the readability of the Bible.
But it does have something to do with the readability of nature. I mentioned it to show that it's easier for scientists studying nature to achieve consensus on what nature means than it is for Christians studying the Bible to achieve consensus on what the Bible means.
Wherever there are Old Earth assumptions we disagree, but the bulk of science has nothing to do with such assumptions. Genetics doesn't need them, most Geology doesn't need them ...
This is technically true, geology has no need to assume that the Earth is old, because geologists can prove it.
However, your intention, I am sure, is to pretend that geologists have no need of this knowledge, while also pretending that it is a mere assumption --- that is, to tell two lies at once, not to tell the truth by their mutual cancellation. In this you are, of course, wrong.
Fact remains: 90% or more of the actual work done in the sciences is perfectly acceptable to a YEC.
Fact remains, I've seen YECs in the pursuit of YECism be wrong about geology, paleontology, genetics, thermodynamics, angular momentum, astronomy, anatomy, animal behavior, the speed of light, nuclear physics, gravity, meteorology, Newtonian physics, the theory of relativity, the history of science, the scientific method ... basically, it would be possible to get a good well-rounded scientific education just by studying why creationists are wrong.
Why? Oh, right, because you don't agree with 90% of the articles.
Otherwise it would be easy, You'd just have to point out nine articles you don't agree with, and tell me that the rest are fine. But you can't actually bring yourself to do that, can you?
Wherever facts are presented without the usual ridiculous ancient age suppositions attached to them, a YEC has no problem with them.
The facts are always presented without your hallucinations. You add those yourself.
And YECs have problems with lots of facts. Ever tried explaining to one of them what (for example) the second law of thermodynamics is, after creationist shit has been shoveled into his head on that subject? Or try to convince one that beneficial mutations exist, in a similar case? Neither of those things has any bearing on the age of the Earth, but they'll still provoke tantrums in the unfortunate fundie dupe.