Sleazy PZ Myers misrepresented the Minnesota State Science Standards
"The student will be able to explain how scientific and technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge portions of or entire accepted theories and models including but not limited to cell theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, plate tectonic theory, germ theory of disease and big bang theory." (PZ's emphasis)
PZ then commented, "This does not support the teaching of Intelligent Design creationism in the classroom." It doesn't support teaching "Intelligent Design creationism" specifically, but it does support teaching the "controversy."
Also, the National Center for Science Education said,
In contrast with some other states, the place of evolution in the science curriculum attracted only a moderate amount of public attention during the writing and approval process in Minnesota.
"Moderate amount of public attention"? Well, there was a fairly big stink back then in 2003-2004 over then Minnesota Commissioner of Education Cheri Yecke's evolution-education policies at that time (1, 2). Even the NCSE acknowledged the controversy (1, 2, 3). And the Darwinists are still making a stink about it.
Also, a reminder regarding the claim that the Santorum Amendment's "teach the controversy" language in the conference committee report of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act carries no weight: the Supreme Court's decision in Blum v. Stenson was not based on explicit statements in a Senate report accompanying a bill but was based on court opinions cited by that report!