Do you recognise the difference between creationism, intelligent design, and theism, or are they all tarred with the same brush?
The Creationist movement and Intelligent Design proponents are - in an institutional sense - the same thing. Relying on the same authorities, arguments and seeking much the same thing in terms of goals. The ID crowd might present a more professional front, and do go to some effort to seek input from those who understand science, and forego the biblical literalism - but it's wolf in sheep's clothing stuff really.
I'm not sure who Oden was referring to - I rather thought it clear that he meant creationists as a gestalt - those who advocate creation 'science'. I think adopting ad hominem is a poor mode of argument - for sure. On the other hand the repeated lies and distortions of the likes of Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and son, Duane Gish, Kirk Cameron and the like are clearly appeals to idiocy in that they, in the main, rely wholly on the ignorance of their audience to get through.
Luckily for them most people are rather ignorant of science in detail, and it's easy to paint gradual historical processes as confused or lacking in evidence and therefore non-scientific.
But the confusion is really just hype and the evidence more comprehensive than most people realise.
Whenever you see someone say "evolution is only a theory" or "if man came from apes why are there still apes" or "evolution doesn't work so now they've invented punctuated equilibrium instead" or dozens of other canards - you know that whilst they might not be a creationist themself they've certainly caught on to some creationist meme.
So I do think it's worth underlining just how stupid such objections are.
Irreducible complexity is, of course, not a creationist meme - it's one of Darwin's ideas that he proposed as a possible challenge to his own ideas.
(This is one of the things that I think undermines the assertion that evolution is a religion - what religion provides criteria that will prove it wrong if found in nature?)
However, the idea that nature shows examples of irreducible complexity is wrong as far as we know - the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, for example, has been savagely debunked, both in courts of science and law.
But - when they think no one who knows that is looking - the ID crowd will still wheel it out as evidence.
Hence people's annoyance with them I suppose - not that they are cretins, exactly, but liars who seek to spread their lies for faith, fun and profit - definately.