Good point. Is this aimed just at Christians or the general public? Is promoting the YEC viewpoint, which is really one take on the question of origin, really going to convince skeptics? Wouldn't it be better to start with the Intelligent Design arguments?
It is not skeptics they are trying to convince.
They are trying to present an alternative to the concepts that are propogated in our schools with our children as captive audiences, and to the general public in magazines, TV, and other media.
We have been brought up to take evolutionary theory (both biological and astonomical) for granted and to regard creationism as it is depicted in Genesis as primitive, simplistic, and mythological. The Creation Research Society is trying to help the public to consider a different point of view ---- a view which is presently rejected out of hand and classified with false concepts from the past which have been clearly discredited such as a flat earth, or a geocentric view of the movements of the planets and sun.
People hold to evolutionary views with great tenacity in spite of evidence to the contrary. I am guessing the reason is so that atheism and agnosticism can appear creditable.
Evolutionary theory reminds me of the old phlogiston theory whose proponents clung tenaciously to the theory in spite of the oxygen explanation of burning objects. They simply altered the theory to accomodate the data. The same was done with geocentric theories of the solar system.
In cosmic evolution, the earth and the moon were supposed to have been broken off from the sun. So it was speculated that when the moon's surface was inspected, rock would be essentially the same as that on earth. It was found, in fact, that their chemical structure was much different.
Further, since the age of the universe was supposedly so great, it was thought that the level of dust on the moon would be hundreds of feet deep. In fact, the astronauts found that it was only a few inches deep.
Such discoveries do not result in evolutionary theory being rejected. All that happens, is that the theory is altered in such a way as to accomodate the new discoveries.
As to biological evolution, one of the most inexplicable facts is the "dance" of the honey bee workers to communicate to other workers the direction and distance of nectar sources discovered.
When a worker discovers a nectar source, it does a figure-8 "dance" on a frame within the hive. Other workers follow it around, and can determine the direction and the distance of the nectar source through pheromones coming from the "dancing" worker's body.
However,
man has discovered that if the figure-8 is configured on the frame such that when the "dancing" bee is moving upward on the centre of the figure-8, then the nectar source is in the direction of the sun.
If the "dancing" bee, at the centre of the figure-8 is moving in a direction which forms a 23º to the left of the vertical, then (believe it or not)
the nectar source is in a direction which is 23º to the left of the sun. The same holds true of any other angle.
So by observing the "bee dance" we can determine the direction of the nectar source by noting the angle formed by the direction the bee moves on the frame. However, the bees themselves don't do it this way. They have never been to school and learned geometry. They determine the direction by the pheromones.
So, how did evolution explain these angles as I have described above?
The fact of these angles do not help the bee to survive (the pheromones do that). Is there any way ---- any way at all, that the bee is benefited by its directional "dancing"? Apparently none! So did God create bees to "dance" in this way for no other reason than to communicate the wonders of His creation to man? It would seem so, at least for those whose minds are not closed to the possibility of a non-evolutionary explanation of life.
Made me laugh! I was picturing you in that picture with your son making a "MEH" face...Ok, so I'm an idiot. 
We should find an emoticon for "MEH".
I'm sure there is a couple of hours of interest inside.