[split] Critical Thinking Skills

[Darkstar]

No Darkstar, you are wrong. When someone shows you evidence that they have collected, really they are making an argument from authority, unless you see the original form the evidence takes in scientific journals and know exactly how to deal with it.

I think that is a bit of a stretch. An argument from authority (as i the logical fallacy) would be "take my word for this, I know what I'm doing" whether or not they do. I suppose that you are technically right in that case, so perhaps we should move onto the more pertinent question: Is science authoritative?

Now, it may be reasonable to trust that the people who are digging up fossils combined with the facts they present line up to tell a story. But they are establishing their credibility, and essentially arguing from their authority, unless you are reading the really technical stuff.

That may be somewhat true, but again, why isn't science authoritative? (Unless this is not what you are arguing)
Also, that doesn't apply to everything. I can understand the theory of evolution and the evidence for it without reading really technical papers. But if you presume it could all be based on false reasoning (i.e. the genetics, fossil record as evidence, etc.)

Remember, scientists must first go through peer review, and any sense of authority would be useless against other scientists.

Most people will never experience real science in their life

Two words: chemistry lab.

, their knowledge of science comes from appealing to scientific figures, whether it is directly an argument from there authority

In which case it would be fallacious.

or some amount of information supporting the theories they support is gained

And if the evidence is bad, it is the duty of other scientists to call them out on it.