I would say, yes, but the way they go about 'persuading' people is less than persuasive, and tends to have the opposite effect of ostracizing and demonizing people. But IMHO I think they are right about the following:
1. There is anti-supernaturalism bias in science (There is no 'evil' 'evolutionist', anti-God or anti-religion conspiracy, but science by definition does presuppose methodological naturalism and reject supernatural causation a priori).
2. The origin of life does not seem explainable by naturalistic causation (at least, by our present understanding, but due to #1, science will always presuppose a naturalistic cause).
3. "Missing links" cannot all be due to an incomplete fossil record (while we now know that much evolution is saltational (by 'leaps') and small scale 'tweaks' and alterations in regulatory genes & developmental pathways can cause abrupt, large-scale changes in organisms; they were correct in their criticism of Darwinian gradualism and the lack of expected intermediate/transitional forms predicted. While in some cases the incompleteness of the fossil record is to blame, it can't account for the overall general lack of expected intermediates).
4. Natural selection and mutation (alone) cannot account for the diversity of life.
5. Other
*And then there are some things that the jury is probably still out on, but that are potentially compelling (at the least, they deserve further consideration and debate): philosophical arguments; origin of the universe; fine-tuning; critical/'hard steps' in evolution that remain problematic (e.g., origin of life, origin of eukaryotes, origin of complex multicellularity, origin of human symbolic language/intelligence, etc.).
Are ID/YECs right about anything?