Re: "Everyone knows that The Flintstones was wrong"
"Infiltrate"? Seriously? What are they, a terrorist cell? Is this an episode of "24"?
While I would agree that CMI is overzealous, the issue comes down to presuppositions. Creationists pre-suppose the existence of the supernatural, despite the fact that you can't measure the super-natural using natural laws. Evolution (as portrayed by Atheists) pre-suppose that there is no God, despite the fact that science runs out of answers when it comes to "how did life begin" and the Big Bang, where natural laws, by definition, were not in play. They have blind faith that Science will find the answer one day, despite their protestations of objectivity.
There is a further problem. Evolutionists take on a religious fervour. They make stuff up to fill in the gaps, in much the same way that the Church did in medieval times regarding the earth being the centre of the universe. There may be mountains of evidence, but when a trial which got evolution into schools was later found to be based on fake "proof", when the half-dinosaur-half-bird from China turns out to be fake (as if we didn't see that coming...), when "Lucy" turns out to be very much like a tree-dweller and really not at all like a human, people feel cheated. When National Geographic provides artists impressions which combine human and ape features, which don't actually correlate to the evidence found, then we have a problem. When people are told the Grand Canyon absolutely must have taken millions of years to create, but then notice that you can get similar effects with large volumes of water moving rapidly in other places, then people do feel justified in questioning the science.
A classic creationist view of the processes evolutionary science uses is at http://creation.com/the-pigs-took-it-all I don't know if it is a misrepresentation and it doesn't make an effort to shoehorn the dating into 6k years. However, it does make the point that the dating is not as objective as is generally portrayed. There is something to be said for putting the caveats found in scholarly articles into the popular science representations. Otherwise you end up with situations like the climategate fiasco, which doesn't help anyone.