that's a fair point, but i think that the challenge is actually to demonstrate that a literal reading of genesis is incompatible with science. if this is what is being challenged, then i wonder if proposing such a workaround undermines the principles of science enough to make the argument that the two are incompatible on that basis alone. it would seem to me that proposing such a workaround undermines science's ability to explain any of the questions that creationism answers. i would think this makes them incompatible. if instead of that approach they decide to challenge the dating methods, then you run into sort of the same problem. the only technically irrefutable argument against the dating methods are along the lines of "maybe radioactive elements didn't always decay at the same rate" or "maybe light didn't always travel at the same speed." yet again to propose such a workaround undermines the principles that make science work.