The idea that blind material forces built up the various creatures that we see around us is more of a speculative, philosophical position than a position arising from empirical data. The idea makes claims regarding the ultimate nature of reality. As such, the idea transcends the bounds of science and enters the realm of metaphysics, as does intelligent design.
The explanatory power of these metaphysical theories can be tested against what we observe in nature. From what I've read, the evidence supports ID theory better than evolutionary theory. The subject should be open to rigorous debate, not a one-sided "debate."
Regardless, the debate is already over. The general public never believed Darwin's theory anyway. The news will reach scientists last. Too many careers have been invested in Darwinism to turn the project around.
Yes it should, but not in a science class. In a philosophy of science class, in a metaphysics class, or in a religion class, fine. Science, however, should remain agnostic, because it's the singular purpose of science to try to describe the material universe. That also means that scientists like Gould or Weinberg ought to be roundly criticized when they bluster about their own conclusions regarding immaterial things under the auspices of science.