This is America (and journalism in America), 2013:

State seeks new science education standards

[…]

Not everyone is convinced that the new standards will be an improvement.

Laurie Higgins, cultural analyst for the Illinois Family Institute, a conservative Christian organization based in Carol Stream that this spring lobbied against controversial sex education reform legislation, believes there are reasons to be wary.

Higgins compared the NGSS to the Common Core State Standards adopted by Illinois in 2010. Both are an effort to “federalize” curriculum, she said.

If states implement these standards, which are based on a framework designed by a national group, that could lead to further deterioration of local control.

“Whenever you federalize something, you introduce a whole bureaucratic establishment that’s inefficient and will rob local communities of any degree of control,” Higgins said. “What they try to say is ‘Oh, this isn’t a curricula (change). These are just standards.’ But standards are linked to curriculum and linked to assessments. Local parents and taxpayers lose any sort of control. If you have issues with these standards, who do you go to?”

[…]

In states like Kentucky, where the new standards were adopted earlier this month, NGSS also drew strong opposition from conservative religious groups that believe teachers are being forced to present controversial topics like evolution as fact while other theories like creationism and intelligent design take a back seat.
A similar debate could occur in Illinois and other states considering the adoption of these standards.

The standards also call for climate change to be discussed as early as middle school. Higgins said while IFI doesn’t take issue with aspects of evolution or climate change being taught, she argues the challenges to those theories must be presented with equal weight.

“We don’t doubt at IFI that climate change exists. The controversy is how much is … man-made,” Higgins said. “We’re not scientists at IFI, but we do know there are challenges to the extent to which man is contributing to climate change.”

[…]

The article writer just throws out “controversial” as if evolution really is controversial, as far as science is concerned.