Unfortunately, the the Discovery Institute is behind it so I know there’s an underlying agenda to replace science with theology despite the text of the law.
***Arguing against something because of who is for it or behind it is ad hominem argumentation, invalid.
The Discovery Institute has as a stated strategy to replace science with theology. This strategy, in a document marked "Top Secret," was leaked by a third party. The document was confirmed authentic by the DI. This law is part of the strategy, as is being ready to defend it against any lawsuits that come from it. The Dover incident was also part of that strategy, but they learned from their loss and adapted.
Thus, while I like the text of the law, I disagree with what will likely be done with it given the stated motives and agenda of those who pushed it. Thus it is not ad hominem, but mistrust based on a known agenda. Phillip Johnson, a founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the ID-proponent arm of the DI, said:
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."Thus when the DI is behind it then the law, especially the part about no religious indoctrination, is suspect.