I can only speak for myself but I think you're making a mistake in thinking that people believe that God created everything based only on translations of scripture. That's enough provided scripture is properly understood and translated. But the main thing is the evidence of the creation itself.
If, in the 16th century, one had written of medical technology that permits a physician to peer into the body without cutting, or to replace a human heart with another John Calvin would himself had lit the pyre.
No doubt.
To be wrong in science is as advancing to the overall progress of man is nearly as significant as to be right because it adds to the overall knowledge base. To propose ideas not yet provable, for future generations of of scientists to validate or refute, is the work of a real scientist.
That's fine. But science based on the wrong premise is junk. It's like positing that the moon is built of green cheese and then coming up with various theories that attempt to justify this conclusion. And ignoring all evidence to the contrary. You can come up with some sound science about green cheese that is completely scientific and factual. You can come up with some statistics about the moon that are completely scientific and factual. But combining these facts and saying that they prove the moon is made of green cheese is kind of silly.
Hence the term "Theory"> Science has a unique set of rules that an idea remains an idea (theory) until it is proved or disproved.