I wasn't sure what the controversy was about so I looked up "intelligent design" on the web. There were 101,000 references. I picked one in "Wikipedia". I read a bit, scrolled a bit, got tired and had a dream. Two men (it's always men) are arguing over whether we just happened by dumb, blind luck, or are by intelligent design. They draw a line in the unknown and start to dig on either side, equally determined to get to the bottom first. As they dig their aggregate arguments pile higher, their holes become deeper but they never get to the bottom.
I do not wish to add to the piles on either side of the line between evolution by blind, dumb luck and by intelligent design. Granted, there is no shooting across this line but the arguments do have a place on the continuum of conflict that characterizes our existence and is causing our self-destruction. Thus for any of us to contribute further to this conflict casts serious doubt on our supposed intelligence whether or not by design.
This is not to suggest we should not be trying to prove either way if life is indeed by intelligent design. However, we can't prove it by digging up and piling arguments whether for or against. This activity is merely an effort to fill the void and will only prove that if there was a design, self-destruction was an included possibility. To have a fair chance at proving intelligent design we must all do what, by all the evidence, we seem designed to do. We must all reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. Only then, after seeing the results of this life experiment, will we be able to draw our conclusion.
The conclusion will be without controversy. When we look on the web for references to intelligent design, there will be just one. It might be no; but perhaps we'll see "God's glory". (see poem)