I realize that there is a ban on debating creationism, so I would like to avoid that entirely.
My question though is this: Doesn’t a literal creationism meet the qualifications for an infallible teaching under the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church? Jimmy Akin lays out the formula, according to the CCC, for a teaching falling under the ordinary and universal magisterium as follows:
This sets forth a number of conditions required for the exercise of infallibility when the bishops are not gathered in an ecumenical council: (1) the bishops are teaching while “maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter”, (2) they are “authentically teaching matters of faith and morals”, and (3) “they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.”
Looking back into history, the overwhelming majority of bishops prior to 1700 held to a literal 6-day creation. Even those that dissented believed in an instantaneous creation followed by 6 days of development of some kind, or an instantaneous creation with 6 days acting as allegory for the teaching. Here is a link by a creationist documenting this: answersingenesis.org/christianity/church/the-early-church-on-creation/
So here we have bishops teaching in communion with one another, an issue of faith, and they are all in agreement on the issue. Yes, some bishops believed the 6 days were allegorical, but virtually no one believed the earth was created in more than 6 days. In fact, I cannot find a single instance in the first 500 years of Christianity or so of anyone holding to a purely allegorical view. Even if there are some exceptions in the first 500 years, surely the majority of the Church seemed to be on the same page. I can find more dissent on the real presence of Christ than I can on this, and I think the Church would definitely hold that to be protected by the ordinary magisterium (as well as the extraordinary).