This is a very interesting question. I think there is a big gap between Sarah Palin and a historian of American history. However is is not clear how one generally declares a source to be authoritative. Is a graduate student enough? Untenured professor? Tenured professor? Tenured for X number of years? Obviously, there are cases where all of the recognized experts and neophytes agree. However, when it comes to issues of interpretation, there will likely be disagreement. For the time being, we just have to play it by ear.
Of course, the declaration of authoritative sources could be an area of research. I'll leave that to others.
Basically, this law carves out a particular scientific theory and demands that there be no discrimination. Obviously, the purpose of this is bill is to advance a religious agenda, but that isn't the biggest problem. Scientific research shouldn't be legislated. Otherwise, you give wacky theories a podium that they don't deserve. For example, let's assume that a mathematician was trying to prove that pi is equal to 3. I'm not a mathematician, but I suspect that this type of research is ridiculous and its advocates should be admonished. But that is the point, I am not a mathematician, which is why I don't tell them how to do their jobs.
In the case of evolution, people should kick its tires and determine where the evidence supports it and where the evidence doesn't it. We will learn more about evolution and identify areas where more research is needed. That is a good thing. In the case of intelligent design, however, the only "research" that I am aware of consists of alleging flaws in the theory of evolution and assuming that intelligent design is the only alternative. If there really is a flaw in evolution, prove it. If intelligent design is the only alternative, prove that too. That being said, if there is a way to apply the scientific method to researching intelligent design, then people should be allowed to do it. If the scientific method is not used, then people should be treated accordingly. But that is true of all research, and we don't need legislation to enforce it.
I'm not disputing that he is douche, but the posting right after he left the police station is just plain stupid. I assume the original posting came up during the interview, so it should have taken less than half of a second to realize that updating the death threat was a bad idea.
Why not do both?
I see you aren't carrying a bomb, and you might want to get this mass checked out by a doctor. This would probably make the scanning more popular, although it might cause people without insurance to act suspicious when flying to get a free scan.
Elliptic paraboloids for sale.