Yes, intelligent design is a legitimate development in speciation from practicing the normal science of neo-Darwinism. Yes, origins is a fundamental philosophical subject. Both the questions of "How" and "Why" could be covered reasonably in about one module each in a science and a philosophy middle-to-high school curriculum, respectively. Both could cover complex and nuanced fields of study capable of stretching young minds. And both would be a waste of time, money, and energy.
Following up on my previous post, the college admissions test outfit, ACT, has determined that only about half of this year's high school graduates have the reading skills they need to succeed in college, and even fewer are prepared for college-level science and math courses (NYT FRR). Until and unless this changes, there is no (read: none, zero, nada, nyet, nein) compelling practical, or philosophical, reason to teach either macro-evolution (including intelligent design), or origins. Tell me again why we are debating whether to teach intelligent design when Johnny cannot read. Instead, we should be yanking macro-evolution out of all the public schools' standard science curricula and focusing on the basics.