I don't think either applies, because they require cause-and-effect thinking, and the reaction you're talking about feels to me more like a "gut reaction", some kind of instinct that's built in at more of an instinctive and emotional level than the kind of conclusion we reach by thinking about causes, effects, and what's coming next a step into the future. (Plus, I have that reaction to things that are well outside of my profession.) I'm thinking of what I'd call "primary motivators", the kind of thing that has us eat not because we're thinking about the need for nutrients but because we feel hungry, and has us avoid danger not because we're thinking about the physical damage to our bodies but because we're scared and pain hurts.

I think that people who end up with much education, and working in scientific fields or subscribing to science magazines or visiting websites like this one, tend to have a "primary motivator" that, like sleep and hunger and pain, is quite simple: knowledge good, factual incorrectness bad. And it's built in as a visceral reaction.

In some cases I think responding to them at all only gives them too much credibility by treating them as worthy of consideration, and wastes time that could be used making real educational progress instead of getting bogged down in silliness. But in the bigger, more prominent case of evolution, I'd use it that way it in my classroom just because it's already out there as a challenge to real science anyway so it might as well be confronted.