Expert: Ralph Salier - 12/3/2008

Question
I told someone that I didn't think there was archaeological evidence to support the claims made in the Book of Mormon. The person's reply was that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I know this is conventional wisdom, but it seems that if the claims were true there would be lots of evidence. Does the absence of evidence in this instance lower the probability that the claims are true? What if you expect to find evidence? Is there a conceivable situation where you would say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

Answer
Hi Michael,

The book of Mormon makes some very interesting claims that at this point are not supported in the archaeological record.  That said, these sites and these "events" may not have been explored to any great degree due to a level of scepticism about the events even having occured.  

Thus his comment may in deed be correct. But, that does not mean that there is evidence anyway.