Even "creationists" isn't a flawless term, although it might be the best of a not-so-good set of choices.
Too often people who believe in both God and science get offended by some posts making statements about "creationists", because they think we're talking about anyone who believes in God, since belief in God comes with the belief that God created the universe, and this makes them "creationists" in the broad (and most literal) sense of the word. They think we're bashing all Christians or all religious people of any denomination.
We're not, of course. Many of the "evolutionists" on these threads are themselves also religious.
When we use the word "creationist", we mean it in the more narrow sense of the word, as exemplified by Duane Gish, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Henry and John Morris, et al. Even "fundamentalist creationist" isn't right, because there are many varieties of fundamentalist creationists -- not all out to lunch on this topic -- plus there are fringe creationists who aren't specifically fundamentalists.
The best phrase I've thought of so far (and it's still less than perfect) is "anti-evolution creationist" (or "AECreationist" for short), since the key thing the "wacko creationists" have in common is a rabid opposition to evolution and other fields of science which they feel are "opposed to" their brand of creationism.
But if anyone can think of a better word, especially one less unwieldy, I'd be glad to adopt it.
The best phrase I've thought of so far (and it's still less than perfect) is "anti-evolution creationist"
I have a friend I see a few times a year who is a staunch conservative. He has pictures of Buckley and Goldwater hung in his den. He has a math/physics education and is currently teaching calculus and statistics courses at a local community college.
I've played golf with him at least a few times a year the past 20 years. We've never discussed this issue. I made the mistake of bringing it up the last time I played with him last week, thinking we would be of like mind as we usually are.
I got bombarded, passionately, with Behe's and Dembski's arguments.
I was shocked and had to end the discussion on the third hole, just to be able to play golf. Based on this, I'm very concerned that ID may become very political. He's always been very rational up until now.
I find that, generally speaking, "anti-Evo/anti-science" covers them pretty well, since if they have problems with Evolution, the only way to support that position ultimately requires them to deny most other fields of science, like geology, Radiometric dating techniques, cosmology, Chemistry, Thermodynamics, etc. You know how it goes: "in for dime, in for a dollar....".