My experience in high school was that you had a biology class in 9th grade that basically consisted of some basic anatomy and systematics/classification (and in the mid 1980s, even public schools were very cautious about teaching much about evolution – I suspect the 1982 McLean v. Arkansas case was still in the minds of school boards, and the easiest way to avoid a lawsuit would have been to downplay the entire topic). 10th grade was general chemistry. 11th grade, if you were in the right track was physics. It’s not difficult to see how people could find themselves in a college level biology class hearing about evolution for the first time. If you’ve been raised in a culture that denies evolution, I can imagine that would be a very uncomfortable experience.

The problem is that biology (at a cell level) is largely applied chemistry and chemistry is basically applied physics, and it’s important to be aware of those connections (not in excruciating detail really, but in broad overview). This didn’t click solidly for me until well into college, when I was fortunate enough to have an organic chemistry professor whose research area was antiretrovirals at the same time that I was taking cell biology, and the lecture discussions overlapped.

Anyway, I think that if people were taught the connections and dependencies between scientific fields, they’d realize that when they go trying to attack evolution, they’re really attacking the chemistry and physics that’s at work behind the biology. Some groups will never do this, though, and will continue to produce folks who are inclined to complain about well-intentioned park rangers.

Anyway, one of the things that greatly disturbs me is that a lot of the folks who deny evolution and get worked into a frenzy at the mere mention of it don't really even know what it is they're objecting to – they've been fed such a distorted version of it that they can't possibly form a valid opinion of the matter.

I wonder how these fragile, easily confused cubs reconciled these beliefs with the visitor center display and explaination of fossil sharks teeth from the Miocene period. We spent the day finding these on the day hike to aptly named Fossil Beach. Although come to think of it, I'm not sure these particular parents let their cubs in the visitor center… (apologize for length)

Cue great hike, owl calling, frog calling experience. At the end of the hike, in a properly contrite tone, this dedicated public servant apologized to us for implying that humans were animals and that he didn't mean to confuse the cubs with evolution. Evidently, one of the parents complained.

I thought the video was useful in that it gets across a significant point, although it has some weaknesses. In addition to the one you mentioned, very small children won't get the joke at the end with the cow, and may conclude that anything with a tail is a monkey. If it had proceded as:

IF ((monkey shaped) AND (has tail)) THEN (monkey)
ELSE
IF ((monkey shaped) AND (no tail)) THEN (ape)

It might have been more technically accurate, and probably wouldn't still be stuck in my head.

The situation where it is more difficult is when talking to creationists, especially YECs. Under certain circumstances, it is rhetorically useful to make the YECs (or bystanders who are watching) understand that the YECs know so little biology that they can't get basic terminology right . However, if this isn't done right it comes across as condescending nitpicking.

Incidentally, I'm not sure I like that video from a pedagogical perspective. It seems to combine two separate lessons: correct classification of monkeys and apes and correct use of binary attributes in classifying. However, the combination of the two could possibly confuse children who are watching. In particular, I suspect that many children will come away from watching that video without a clear understanding that apes are in fact the monkey-shaped beings without tales.

The kids I had with me (my two plus the one of my daughter’s friends) got the monkey/ape lecture as we were moving to the next exhibit.

I should have spoken up – in a smaller crowd I would have.