Young-earth creationists, of which I am one, reason deductively, starting by assuming the Bible is true (and mostly literal) and working down to what we see and have discovered about the world.
Which is absurd on its face, because you are beginning with the conclusion ("The Bible is literally accurate") and following by actively disbelieving any evidence to the contrary.
Rational thought begins with evidence and ends with a conclusion. Your entire mental process is a gigantic logical fallacy.
The closest comparison I could make woudl be for me to come up with a hypothesis, and use it as an axiom. Any evidence I find that conflicts with my hypothesis must be "interpreted wrong," or should be outright disbelieved and ignored, because I have stated a priori that my hypothesis is accurate.
™ Version 4.2