The biggest problem with this whole discussion is the mistaken assumption that there are only two camps - creationist and evolutionist - and that they are diametrically opposed. There are creationist scientists who accept the evidence of an ancient universe and genetic shifts. There are also scientists who do not invoke God but admit evidence of design.
As I mentioned earlier, those arguing from the extreme opposite ends of the question are, IMO, both overlooking much recent scientific discovery. As it stands, a lot of straw men are being propped up by both extreme camps. Playing the label game isn't very educational, but if you must, it would be more accurate to simply divide the groups into "atheist", and "believer".
An important distinction to be made is between "Creationists" and Christians who believe in divine creation, but don't accept the fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of the creation account in Genesis, but rather allow that it's a metaphorical description of creation, leaving out details which were later filled in by scientific discovery, i.e., Genesis wasn't meant as a science text book.
A "Creationist" is someone who believes that the earth and physical universe are ten thousand years old, or less, that each species that ever lived, including man, was conjured into existence at roughly the same time, is roughly the same today as then, and that no animals of distinct species are connected genetically to any animal of another species, all being unique, unrelated, members of their own distinctly created species, e.g., a horse and a donkey (the Creationist will tell you) never had a common ancestor that lived some time in the past, nor did a snake and an iguana, a cow and a lion, a T-Rex and a mallard, etc., etc..
