Tis not quibbling, tis the truth. Semantics do matter, and for this person to make a such a blanket statement tars every creationist with the same brush - whether or not they agree with him. And there is plenty of evidence that a large body of the body politic disagree with him. Mere quibbling? I think not.
He's not tarring anyone with anything. He specifically defines what he means by the word "creationism" :
By "creationism" I mean here the theory of separate divine creation of each biological "kind," with no subsequent development from one "kind" to another. Creationisrn rejects "macroevolution."
If your view of creationism doesn't fit that definition, then he's obviously not criticizing it.
And BTW, he is using "creationism" in the way the vast majority of people use it today.
If your view is different from the above, I suggest you call it something else, because you're going to confuse a lot of people if you call it "creatoinism."
If you believe in a creator but also believe in macroevolution, then the most commonly used term to describe that view is "theistic evolution."
There are few things more futile than fighting linguistic conventions. Don't tilt at windmills.