Daniel Engber has an article in Slate about the modern sceptic movement, in which he concludes:

That's the conundrum of the modern skeptics movement: Intelligent Design theorists and deniers of global warming may very well be phonies and scoundrels, but no one is going to debunk them in the classic sense. You can't reveal their hidden microphones or mimic their tricks with sleight of hand. Intelligent Design, after all, is an attempt to recast (even to "rebunk") Creationism in scientific terms. The best weapon against it isn't dramatic exposé, but scientific argument. So a change in tactics makes sense for the movement.

I think ID theorists are misguided and wrong, but "phonies and scoundrels" is a little harsh. Part of the problem is that there is a large amount of popular support for their ideas. I don't think these people are motivated by greed or malice.

People who disapprove of teaching evolution in favor of some flavor of creationism simply don't understand the theory very well. And many don't seem to have a problem with teaching religious viewpoints in schools.

I think the best thing people who want change can do is be an example, try to have discussions with other people who disagree, and just keep going on. Good policy and good science will ultimately prevail.