First, we have to define what infallibility really means. Huge sections are poetry, and not just the book of Psalms.
Huge sections are history, but here and there you’ll find things which aren’t deliberate miracles yet which, otherwise, can never have happened on Planet Earth. Attempts by such as the Creation Science Institute to explain these are sad because they rest on some very dodgy rationalizations. As in, one weeps that adults would consider vague analogy tantamount to proof.
Genesis 1, in particular, looks exactly like a liturgy due to its repetitious form. Read it as a Deed of Title? Amen. But to read it as equivalent to a 21st Century scientific description? Why on earth? First, if it’s history, why does Genesis 2 provide a different version?
Second, why does it have to be history in the first place? God reveals Himself through stories that reinforce His ownership, intention, and love. So a world-wide flood, or tower of babel, or near-thousand-year life spans?
These have nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, His Resurrection, etc. Consider that Paul makes a meat-milk analogy when discussing whether to eat meat offered to idols. The subtext is, first, that *those were restaurants* in his day. Christians came across as, were labeled as, *atheists* because they denied the pantheon of gods. So when Paul is with strong friends, they eat a delicious steak knowing full well that there is zero worship implied to whichever god ran that temple – sacrificed meat dine-out-place.
When Paul was around new Christians who didn’t understand that part yet, he proclaimed himself vegetarian and “only ate vegetables.” He ‘fed’ these new, still-weak Christians milk, until their teeth grew in and they understood how to eat meat.
SO – folks who insist that Genesis 1 must be read as a rigid history of events, also accept the Flood and Babel and Methuselah as though they read them in the encyclopedia – their most generous relationship to professing Christians who accept a 13-odd billion year earth is to say to themselves, “Poor folks, they have Christ but are still drinking milk with respect to Scripture.”
And on the other side of the mirror are people whose understanding of the world we live in, all 13-odd billion years of it, refuse to second-guess God’s methods, timetable, or the manner in which He reveals himself to various populations at various points in human history. They say, when feeling generous, “Our Young Earth friends have Christ, but still drink milk with respect to the astonishing world the Word spoke into being so long, long ago.”
I hope this illustrates the stage on which that debate is taking place.