I noticed this thread when it first started, but didn't read it because I thought the answer to the question was obvious: of course evolution shouldn't be accepted on authority. I figured the thread would last a couple posts at most. But after four days the thread has more than 80 posts and is still going strong, so I thought I'd offer my two cents.
My first impression is that there is some confusion between the fallacy of "argument from authority" with accepting something based on someone else's say-so. If you say, "Bacteria cause infection because Pasteur says so," that's an example of the stereotypical argument from authority, and it's a fallacy plain and simple. We know bacteria cause infection because of the experimental evidence, with the groundbreaking work performed by Pasteur.
But since we haven't personally performed the experiments, are we accepting the germ theory of disease based on authority? Here's where I think a terminology problem is introduced. When we accept the germ theory of disease, we're not accepting it on authority, we're simply relying on authority. There's so much to know, we really have little choice but to rely on authority in most things.
But that doesn't mean we suspend judgement. When you're doing the research yourself, you look for consistency of results, both with your own research and that reported by others. When you're relying upon authority instead of doing your own research, then you also look for consistency. If things don't seem to agree, then if you're really interested you might look into it further. Sometimes this happens to such an extent that people begin doing their own original research.
Most of us rely upon authority when it comes to the evidence for evolution, but there is no requirement that you do so. If something about evolution seems wrong or inconsistent, then look into it further.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2