Hardcore, I’ll try to answer your questions in a general sense; but I would prefer not to get into arguing the specifics of my beliefs, if you don’t mind, because I don’t think that was the intent of your thread. As I understand it, the purpose of this thread was not to critically examine the various beliefs of the Creationists; rather, it was to examine possible reasons why Creationists tend to single out Evolution from the other sciences for special criticism.
Darwin’s theory and the body of work which grew out of it and built on it caused a substantial amount of damage to long-held dogma and greatly undermined the credibility the Church had previously held in explaining scientific matters. So Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is an object of scorn which many would love to discredit, if only they could.
Further, I think that for at least some Creationists the fundamental objection to the theory of evolution is more than just that it contradicted dogma; it’s that it caused a shift in the balance of authority between science and religion. Prior to Darwin, when the general public wanted explanations of nature and such, they asked the Church what the official views were and accepted those. Sure, there were a few scientists who spoke of unusual things, like the Earth revolving around the Sun, and such; but the public trusted the Church to give them the straight dope. But with the coming of Darwin, the furor which surrounded his theory generated so much interest and study, and the arguments put forth seemed so compelling, that the general public began to put a bit more trust in the scientists and a little less in the Church. In other words, they would consult the scientists first, rather than the Church; even to the point of dismissing Church teaching if it disagreed with science, rather than the other way around. And it’s this shift on the part of the public, from putting more trust in science than in the Church, that has generated the undying enmity of the hard-core fundamentalists.
I, too, agree that Darwin’s Finch has indeed identified another aspect of the problem. It rankles many to suggest that their great-grandfather was an ape. 
It is preferable to think we’re the descendants of God, not monkeys.
However, as I said before, among the Creationists the word Evolution has come to be catch-all term for any scientific tenet with which they disagree. Thus, among those whom you are trying to comprehend, the word does not hold the same meaning as it seems to hold for you.
As for my personal beliefs, about which you enquired: No, I don’t preclude any role for evolution. I accept it in the sense of mutations leading to variety within species. But in the sense of crossover between families I am unconvinced, despite the seeming abundance of evidence; because I am not convinced that the world is as old as is postulated. Science says that given billions and billions of years evolution can account for new families; and this may indeed be possible. But I don’t accept that the world, as we know it, has existed for those billions of years. (And the qualifier, “as we know it”, is important to my understanding. But that’s another issue.)
For myself, I think the thing which is science’s weakness is the belief among many of its adherents that the laws of science and nature are supreme and inviolable; everything MUST be explainable through definable, scientific means. Whereas I believe that while God created the laws of science and nature, He is Himself not limited and bound by those laws. He is outside His own laws and can, if He chooses, do things which seem contrary to those laws.
For example, when He created animals with the capacity to change over time and adapt to their environments, that didn’t mean He had to make just one amoeba and wait millions of years for the rest of the animal kingdom to show up; He could make some of each family all at once, and give the process a head start, so to speak. The laws of nature could then be left to continue from that point.
For me, belief in God doesn’t preclude belief in science. In fact, I believe God created science. But I don’t feel that that which is created can contain that which created it. It’s the other way around.
