Why should evolution be accepted on authority?

RobinrohanFar be it from me to, in any way, feel the need to defend crashfrog, but you do realize that by saying the following, you are, in a way, defending his positionbecause he said that this is exactly what we do NOT have to do since we accept the methodology of scientific publications. Of course, you argument is that we accept it on authority because we did not do the research ourselves. At what point do you stop the lunacy of that particular argument?
Is it possible that the ToE is wrongsure. But for now, all the evidence for the ToE says otherwise and (this is the important part robinrohan) even though I did not personally participate in the collection of the data that supports the theory, I can (and have) examine the results that are published in scientific journals. I look at the evidence, not the authors. The evidence, robinrohan, the evidence, not the people.
Do you understand what I’m asking? At what point then, by your argument, do you believe anything? Do you only accept things for which you yourself have collected the data? I think Percy, in post 82, said it best when he said we’re not accepting it on authority, we’re simple relying on authority. What other choice do we have?Later,
FliesOnly

Hello Again:In post 94 Hmmmmhow about look at the evidence as a reply? Even a layman can, if they are so inclined, examine enough of the available evidence to reach the only plausible scientific conclusion, which is that the diversity of living things on this planet is a result of decent with modification.now Yeah, and they might also read crap like Dembski’s The Design Inference, or Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, or Johnson’s Darwin on Trial, or any other creationist literature, but yet we don’t hear you or anyone else complaining about accepting those publication on authority. Let me ask you, robinrohan; do you accept both types of publications, (peer-reviewed scientific literature and Behe’s book, for example), equally? Do you have equal faith that both are correct? Do you accept both sources on authority?Crashfrog has explained that by and large we do not just accept scientific publications on authority, because the evidence is out there for anyone to examine (quite a bit of it anywayplenty, in fact, to grasp more than just the basics of the theory). You then asked if there are other concepts that can’t be proven that we none-the less accept in the same way that we accept the ToE, to which schrafinator responded with three examples. Yet we do not see people demanding that other ideas addressing these issues be taught in our public schools. So I ask again, robinrohan; at what point do you say enough?You went on to say that since we can deduce mathematically that the Earth rotates around the sun; we are not accepting it on authority. Ok, I’ll biteshow me the math and prove to me that you understand it. Otherwise I will simply assume that you are accepting on authority that the equations are correct. Do you know for certain that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is correct? How about quantum equations? And on and on it goes. So what’s your point? If we follow your logic then we accept everything on authority, not just the ToE, but yet you’re not complaining about anything else.To me, the whole argument comes down to this: Scientific investigations are set up in such a manner as to avoid the very sort of thing you are complaining about. The results are peer-reviewed and then published for all to see. Do I understand Quantum Physics or String Theory? Hell nobut I trust that other experts do understand. You call that accepting it on authority and I do not (as explained by crashfrog and percy in previous threads), but yet we NEVER see creationists bitching about anything other than the ToE. Why is that?