There are several problems with all of that, timmah. First, no one's talking about the origins of the universe here. This is creationism insofar as it is opposed to evolution, and evolution says nothing whatsoever about the origins of life or of the universe before life began (if in fact there was such a time). All of your talk about the big bang not being explicable by modern physics is interesting, but it's completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Science doesn't have a rigorous theory as to how or why the Big Bang occurred - you're not really arguing with anyone here.
Your only defense of intelligent design (of life) is your talk about DNA. You ask for a plausible nontheistic mechanism, which is somewhat surprising to me. Biologists call this mechanism 'natural selection' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection). It should be apparent how this can result in a logical order without design, but, if you'd like real-world proof of the same idea, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation.
Anyway, none of what you offer is particularly useful evidence for a theistic theory of anything.
Known facts invariably underdetermine an explanation. Knowing that the bus arrives at the corner every day at 9AM, I can't choose between a theory about a person driving the same bus in from elsewhere every morning or a theory about a deity creating new buses ex nihilo every morning.
In science, we choose between underdetermined theories by testing their predictions, which could have been otherwise. Every scientific theory that enjoys widespread support in the scientific community (including evolution) enjoys that support because the theory has successfully predicted the outcomes of many experiments.
Something like intelligent design, however, makes no useful predictions, and so no rational person can sensibly choose it over other theories which are indicated by the same set of facts. One might maintain that it is equally as likely as other theories which are equally untested, but you simply cannot maintain that it is particularly likely to be the explanation.
To clarify, let's consider the difference between the sort of predictions evolution and ID make. Evolution predicts that ecosystems which are similar will have similar sorts of animals in them and that animals will be more like each other when their habitats are geographically close. We can imagine that this would not be the case, and so each time these predictions are confirmed, evidence for evolution grows. ID, however, does not make these predictions. It is compatible with these predictions, yes, but it is equally compatible with the opposite outcomes, and so neither can be taken as evidence.
Edit: It's also worth noting that there's a difference between intelligent people and those who know what they're talking about. Smart people can be creationists, but this is simply because many of them are not sufficiently familiar with the body of evidence. It's telling that, almost without exception, smart biologists believe in evolution. Intelligence doesn't count for much if your premises are wrong.
Also, as a researcher myself, it's clear to me that the main message of the movie is just absurd. Science doesn't suppress contradictory viewpoints - scientists chase after them constantly. Do you have any idea how famous a biologist who could produce an experiment showing serious flaws in the evolutionary theory would become? He'd be set for life. Everyone wants to be the next Newton, Darwin, or Einstein - completely overturning decades of scientific consensus is every scientist's dream.
