The terms materialism and physicalism are taken on these threads according to their respective meaning in philosophy. From the Dictionary of Philosophy of the Mind. (emphasis mine)
materialism - The view that everything that actually exists is material, or physical. Many philosophers and scientists now use the terms `material' and `physical' interchangeably (for a version of physicalism distinct from materialism, see physicalism). Characterized in this way, as a doctrine about what exists, materialism is an ontological, or a metaphysical, view; it is not just an epistemological view about how we know or just a semantic view about the meaning of terms.
physicalism - The view that everything that is real is, in some sense, really physical.
For lurkers, epistemology is the study of our method of acquiring knowledge.
Unless a poster specifies that they are a materialist (epistemologically speaking), the term materialist will most assuredly be taken ontologically or metaphysically --- and not just epistemologically, and thus may quite likely lead to accusations of atheism, ill will, etc.
Conversely, if a poster specifies that he is a physicalist, no ill will can follow. The physicalist has not presumed that the material world is all that there is, but he has not ruled it out either.
Dealing with the perceptions of the terms that we use can be mighty annoying, but I think it is worth the effort. I'm trying to follow that rule of thumb by being careful to to use the full term theory of evolution when appropriate
I don't feel very sophisticated in this particular discussion, but I would say that when anything reaches the threshold of "isness" it is material. to me this is just semantics. Physicist speaks of being a Deist. I suppose I am a monist, if that term is not obsolete. Of course, quantum theory allows matter to embody what used to be called dualism. The difference between philosophical dualism and quantum theory is that quantum duality can be observed and studied.
Now I'm going to take a nap before I drown in my own BS.
Conversely, if a poster specifies that he is a physicalist, no ill will can follow. The physicalist has not presumed that the material world is all that there is, but he has not ruled it out either.
After all this time in these threads, I've only just now been exposed to this wafer-thin distinction of terms. I've known that "materialist" was a philosophical school that includes atheism, and I've resisted that label when it's been tossed at me, but way too many creationists assault folks on my side with labels like "darwinist atheist materialist humanist dogmatist" and it's just too much bother to correct them. I once -- only once -- told someone that two could play that game, and I could label him a "creationist socialist sodomite cannibalist" or some such collection of terms. I guess I didn't make the point very well, because someone complained to the mods and got the post pulled.
Anyway, as your post illustrates, when someone advocates a position like evolution, there's an unfortunate tendency to automatically attach to that person a load of unrelated ideas. This is a source of considerable ill will.
In my experience, any defense of materialism is more likely to lead to expressions of ill will, rather than accusations of same.