I like to think of it this (not unique to me by any means) way.
The are, as we all know, two types of revelation. Special (the bible) and General (creation.)
Let us stipulate, even if just for the sake of argument, that both are infallible.
Both being infallible, they cannot be in conflict--God is not a god of confusion.
There is a man-based study of special revelation, let's call it theology.
There is a man-based study of general revelation, let's call it science.
Both being fallible human activities, they can be in conflict.
When the conflict arises, there is only one a priori certainty: one or both of the human endeavors is wrong.
Faced with conflict, we should examine the possibility that either (our theology and/or our science) is wrong.
Examples? Luther famously mocked Copernicus, based on his (Luther's) theological certainty of a geocentric cosmos. The scientists won that one. On the other hand, in the early 20th century the leading minds believed in a steady state universe with no beginning. Score that one for the theologians who relied on the first verse of the bible.
What's the overall score? I don't know, but the numbers are not large--because in the final analysis the bible says very little about science.