Disqualify creationists from what? What I mean by "fully assess evolution" is a bit of sloppy typing. I should have really said the only ones who understand the full hypothetics of evolution theory to an expert level.
Anyone can learn the science and assess the theory itself. The problem is in finding creationists who are willing to learn the science.
In the scientific arena, the voices that count are from those who publish primary research papers in peer reviewed journals. This is true of every single scientific field. It's not a matter of being an expert, but a matter of being a scientist to does the science and publishes that science. As I have stated before, science is an activity, not a title.
In forums and debates like these, what matters is the ability to have a functional understanding the primary research papers. You don't have to understand every word, but you should be able to read a paper and get the general gist of it. You should also know the basic concepts of phylogenies, genetics, and anatomy. What we see over and over are creationists that can't read primary papers and get the basics of biology wrong. Because of this, we correctly point out that their opinions of evolution are based on ignorance.
That is like saying that being a fan of motor sport makes you a race driver. But take my advice - don't listen to the fan if you want to be instructed on how to race a car.
If someone said that modern car engines run on steam instead of gasoline, what would you think of their opinions on how race cars should be designed? That's kind of how we view creationists. When a creationist says that macroevolution is a cat evolving into a dog, that is the equivalent of saying that a 2017 Ford Mustang runs on steam.
In context the point of my analogy was that the things I come across from amateur evolutionists online tend to be disparate from the things I hear scientists actually argue. One popular claim seems to be that macro evolution is a fact which tells me they think the "hypothesis" part of science contains facts. In fact confirmation evidence in inductive reasoning provides a tool to collect confirmation evidence not affirmation evidence.
"Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
Macroevolution has been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent".
You haven't demonstrated that here. As far as I know not many creationists have taken the quiz. It's easy to just go back to personally attacking creationists and saying "creationists are X" but if you are a person of science you should know that actually showing some evidence your claim is true, is better than just SAYING THINGS.
"What we see over and over".
What does that even mean as a statement? "We" who, a few amateur debaters on EvC forum?
So far in this thread it seems people misunderstand. If they re-read message one they will see some disclaimers I made. I wasn't saying this is a perfect test of knowledge of biology and I did say you can provide a better one if you want.
The population genetics test was given to me by an evolutionist, he himself is educated in that area and got IIRC, about 93%.
Quizzes are not primary papers. Quizzes have nothing to do with being able to understand the evidence supporting evolution.