"You are indeed correct. For example, if I suggest that God could just as easily used evolution as part of his grand design I am called a Christian/God hater. I see what you mean."
Let me be more specific in what I am trying to say. The creationists tend to use ad-hominem attacks to attempt to impeach the integrity of the posters that disagree with them. The Evo's use the same tactics to impeach the integrity of the ID and creationist "experts" quoted and linked.
Nonsense. Ad hominem" is a fallacy when used in this form: "What the person says must be wrong because he's [something insulting]".
An ad hominem analysis, however, is the *appropriate* antidote for the creationist fallacy of "argument by authority" (they wave around quotes from alleged experts then imply -- or outright snottily say -- that the quote is unimpeachable because it's an "expert" in the field and we're just internet peons).
In reply to *that*, it's quite appropriate to point out failings of the "expert" in question in order to show that he's not the "objective expert" the creationists claim he is.
Additionally, we don't point out that the "expert" must be wrong because he beats his dog or whatever, we point out that HE ISN'T THE EXPERT HE'S HELD UP TO BE BECAUSE HE'S WRONG. And we point out exactly how and why he's wrong. We undercut the "expert" by addressing his ARGUMENT, not undercut the argument by attacking the expert.
OK, in other words, both sides use ad-hominem attacks. Perhaps it's the only thing left to debate with. One side has scientific (if incomplete) evidence (however you want to define that), while the other side has faith. I think it is difficult to carry on an intellectual discussion on those terms, thus resulting in the ad-hominem attacks.
The difference is that the evolutionists are speaking the truth.