Well, you have to remember that we didn't know that much about monkeys for a long time. The best example is probably King Kong (the 1933 movie). Kong is shown as a large and evil being. This is not because those who made the movie wanted to make a cute gorilla into an evil beast, but rather because that was the general view on gorillas. They were, after all, as tall as a man, dark, and hiding out in the jungle. Their near-human appearance (and sharp teeth), coupled with the fact that they were so rarely seen, let alone studied, led people to view them as the creature in the KK movie (only slighly shorter
)
Studying them, we've come to realise they are quite social creatures with whom we share many things. Quite a different way of viewing things than before.
These days, if we want to make a movie about killer apes, they have to have escaped after being genetically altered before we'd 'buy' it.
From a religious point of view, it looks as if Darwinism isn't compatible with beliefs concerning the origin of the world and humankind itself. That means you'd have to disbelieve one, and in that case it's often the Darwinism people just learned about, which 'has to be' wrong.
Personally, I don't see why the two couldn't merge (with a small bit of effort), but then I'm not a religious person.
At the core of the 'emotional disturbance' is the fact that it challenges peoples believes. If someone tells you you should eat green apples rather than the red ones you always have, it's only a tiny ripple. If someone tells you your view on how the world and everything on it came to be may not be correct, that's a tidal wave