Changes

John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]].  He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>

John Derbyshire, a columnist at the [[conservative]] [[National Review|National Review Online]], wrote a surprisingly critical review, ''despite not having seen the film'', and confused [[intelligent design]] with [[creationism]].  He said that "[[creationists]]" have been "morally corrupted" and engage in "willful act[s] of deception." He concludes that attacking "science" (i.e. [[evolution]]) is equivalent to attacking [[Western Civilization]].<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk=</ref>

It has also been (unfairly) poorly received by the general public, with a user rating of 3.8 out of 10 on the Internet Movie Database website, only 3 positive reviews out of 33 on the website Rotten Tomatoes, and a 20 out of 100 rating on the website Metacritic.

It has also been (unfairly) poorly received by the general public, with a user rating of 3.8 out of 10 on the Internet Movie Database website, only 3 positive reviews out of 33 on the website Rotten Tomatoes, (which makes it lower-rated than Catwoman the Movie, which won 3 golden razzies, one for worst actress, one for worst movie, and one for worst director) and a 20 out of 100 rating on the website Metacritic.

== Issues surrounding the film ==   

== Issues surrounding the film ==