This is troubling. I understand the distinction between science as a process or methodology versus conclusions. However, I would maintain that there are certain "facts" that if a person has failed to ascertain then we can conclude that they have failed in the use of the scientific method. Or, if a person holds a position which they claim is scientifically verified, and is obviously not true, we can conclude that they have failed to understand science.

For instance, a person holds some irrational belief as true even though some trivially easy test empirically disproves.

Say they believe that a tennis ball will never fall to the ground if thrown more than 5m directly upwards. We can be sure (by our own empiricism) that this claim can only come from a scientific failure.

Evolution is no doubt far more complex an issue but I think we can still conclude that if a person doesn't consider it to be the best/most likely truth of the process behind the diversity of life on Earth that at some point they have failed to grasp the evidence, methodology, or theory.

We can judge the quality of the science based on a conclusion insofar as that conclusion is demonstrably weak.

Science is many things. It doesn't necessarily have to be empirical, rigorous or objective (as in scientific objectivity, not philosophical objectivity), though that is usually its typical image. Nor is it really up to me or anyone else to judge what is "science", because it should not be up to an individual or a group to censor everything else as non-science. However, qualified criticism is definitely on the table.

Creationism is plagued repeatedly by two grievous errors that are pretty much universally shunned in science regardless of epistemological starting points. Those are fraud (fake peer reviews, fake credentials, fake data) and misquotes (misrepresentation of other scientific work). Most actual researchers who were caught in such acts would lose their positions and be discredited. It is also plagued by two "lesser" errors; It has no scientific reliability or validity, and can not produce any instruments; is ultimately useless. From an empiricists viewpoint this would be an error close to the two first ones in magnitude.

Outside thought experiments and strawmans creationism is not science by any reasonable standard, and nor is teaching it science.

I completely disagree. Most facts are learned by rote, not by experimentation. For example, when talking about fossils, students are told X about fossils. Students don't actually dig up fossils and use techniques to date them. The same holds for experiments.

I completely disagree. That person would be wrong, but that's not necessarily a failure to understand science. It's simply being wrong.

I don't understand why you're saying this at all. There is a clear definition of what can be considered scientific, a clear list of criteria that must be met. Why is defining something as 'non-scientific' censorship? It's not being suppressed, just defined as non-scientific. If you were told that something couldn't be considered 'religious', would you consider that censorship too?

LOL