Unqualified for what, exactly?

Well if they are saying that the Bible cannot literally be true, then I think it's safe to say that something like 99.999999% certainty could be acceptible, same as I could be 99.9999999% certain that the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow. You never know, it might not. And you never know, a supernatural being might have created the earth and all the animals that ever lived in it in 6 days, 6000 years ago. There's a lot of evidence contrary to this though, so the proof you present will need to address it. Can we see it please?

Contrary to what some people seem to want to think, I want to get at the truth; and when I do that, I weigh up the evidence for whatever possibilities seem to exist. I don't have a burning desire to see either evolution or creationism proved. What I see on one side is observable, testable evidence like the kind I listed above. On the other side I see a religious book, one of many other religious books in the world, and no scientific proof of the literal truth that some people claim it has. If they stopped claiming that creationism is in any way scientific, then it would take its proper place among philosophical world views; but I don't suppose that's going to happen because some people still want to make children in schools learn about it as a legitimate alternative to evolution. As long as they're doing that, then they're going to be continually called to task and told to prove that creationism is scientific.

Can you?