"Oh yeah, well if I'm so wrong why are you still arguing with me?"

Yes, it's is the kind of thing you'd expect to hear on one of those adolescent sitcoms. But this line of argument comes directly from the Discovery Institue (okay, maybe the sitcom analogy is not such a stretch).

I know the bar has been set extraordinarily high (low?) but it occurs to me that this assertion, an example of which follows, may represent the most puerile, childish, painfully foolish argument used by the pro-"intelligent design" corps.

"...it's ironic when scientists issue press releases alleging they've refuted intelligent design (ID), supposedly resolving a scientific controversy they claim doesn’t even exist."

The newest iteration of this silliness, as well as the source for the above quote, comes from a DI blog entry entitled "Scientists Continue to Debate the Controversy that Doesn’t Exist." It's a tactic that has been used often, as if it constitutes some sort of coherent rebuttal to the clear evidence that there is no scientific controversy regarding evolution.

Like many pro-ID arguments this is one that the p.r. hacks at the Discovery Institute likely all know is specious but use anyway because the p.r. return is worth the expenditure in integrity.

But let's lay it out for them anyway.

1. There is no scientific controversy regarding evolution and intelligent design.
2. There is a vigorous political campaign underway to inject ID creationism into the scientific process.
3. Scientists and pundits who rebut ID nonsense are responding to that misinformation campaign. This is not reflective of any rift, split, schism or division within the scientific community regarding the soundness of evolutionary theory, or the irrelevance of "intelligent design," it is the result of biologists resisting religious intrusion into their arena.

It is a lie to say, or imply, otherwise. And like so much sitcom dialogue, it's really, really stupid.