Then in a broader sense all theists are creationists.
No. One does not need to think there exists scientific evidence that life or some aspect of it was designed to be a theist. Theists generally think life was designed, but thinking this does not require one to think there's scientific evidence of it.
But creatonism has a negative connotation because it is generally associated with those who reject evolution, believe the world is 6,000 years old, take the Bible as a science book, etc.
Those who take creationism to refer to a particular vein of young earth creationism just aren't familiar with it's complexity. You clearly buy into ID arguments that are, quite literally, arguments that used to be called "scientific creationism" that simply were relabeled for political purposes. Heck, you've used arguments emphasized generally in creationist literature labeled as such that don't figure as much into more modern ID writing, such as the aforementioned half a wing, Hoyle's "calculations", etc.
Your views on evolution shift all the time, and it's hard to pin you down here. Needless to say, the Kevin of "what good is half a wing" was not in any meaningful sense a believer in evolutionary theory. For what it is worth, a standard creationist position is to say they accept evolution, but not "Darwinism" where "Darwinism" in this case really just refers to the basic tenets of evolutionary biology.
Here I'm going to recommend the generally accepted best work on the subject:
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/NUMC ... ow=reviewsSeriously. Read it.
Would you call Antony Flew a creationist
To the extent that man still has his wits about him, yes. He's specifically cited the influence of Gerald Schroeder - an explicit creationist - and used classic creationist abiogenic arguments for goodness sake. You've used them as well.