The basic building blocks of single celled organisms have been created in test tubes. Electricity, water, and prehistoric atmosphere combined to produce complex ammnio acids. Can you really ignore the fact that once this happened in the right circumstances life was inevitable?
Strip
The Urey-Miller experiment of which you speak has been discredited for some time. The couple of amino acids that resulted were far simpler than the basic building blocks of life, and used a precursor "chemical soup" that has since been determined to be completely unrepresentative of the condition on earth at the time life is posited to have begun. That is why the OOL question is still completely open, and why virtually no hypothosis currently put forth has gained any traction or proved to be fruitful in guiding further research. Each such hypothesis results in more questions than it answers, intractable questions that continue to stymy progress in OOL research. Even if scientists managed to produce simple amino acids with the chemical compositions actually available in pre-biotic earth, this is still so far from true life that it is naive in the extreme to assume that would lead inevitably to DNA-based life. Life cannot exist without the DNA code of life, yet DNA would not exist in the absense of the basic components of cellular life. The simplest cell possible is so vastly complex and specified that the odds of it happening by chance exceed the probablistic resources of the entire universe since the moment of the Big-Bang. That is a basic tenant of intelligent design theory, not (as those wishing to label it "creationism" would like you to believe) scripture.
Why, might I ask, is it scientific to look at forensic evidence, or rock formations, or EM signals from space and ask, "Is it natural or designed?", but un-scientific to look at the incredible complexity and specificity in a single living cell, or the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants, and ask, "Is this designed?" Who the designer is may be a question not answerable by science at this time, but detecting the hallmarks of design itself certainly is not.
Anyway, the basic premise of this film is NOT whether Darwinian evolution is a correct and sufficient mechanism to explain all life on Earth, or whether ID can be persued scientifically. You missed the entire point of the film if that's all you took away from it (it's certainly the only thing most negative reviewers chose to focus on, though). The point of the film is to document a pattern of descrimination and suppression of any scientist who openly questions Darwinism's efficacy, or proposes that there is detectable and measureable evidence of design in nature.
