Something just struck me regarding the opposition to "Expelled"

As I was reading this post - another in a long line of anti-free speech, anti-open-minded scientific thinking posts on many blogs - it just suddenly hit me: what exactly are these people defending? They claim they're defending science in the form of evolution, but Intelligent Design (which, incidentally, I don't personally ascribe to) doesn't discount evolution in the least. ID has no problem with life evolving from one form to another (which is why I don't ascribe to it). What it does discount is the belief that life crawled out of some random puddle of chemical goo and randomly evolved (or as the evolutionists like to contradict themselves, "was naturally selected in an undirected process" - I didn't know selection was undirected) to the myriad forms of life that we see today. ID sees the origin and evolution of life as non-random - that life is too complex to not have an intelligent agent is behind it all.

So really, what the critics of "Expelled" have a problem with is the origins of life, even though they claim evolution has no opinion on the issue. That may be true, but they all certainly have an opinion on the issue and that opinion is that life arose without any sort of intelligence behind it. If you don't agree with that opinion, then you are not a "true scientist" and what you are practicing isn't "true science." Funny how no one ever defined science as excluding any sort of intelligent designer.