One Long Argument from Authority

Argument from authority: "Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative."

One long argument: Phrase used by Darwin in the final chapter of The Origin of Species to describe the whole book.

---

A couple of months ago I highlighted a harsh review of Rod Meldrum's publications and talks that was published in the FARMS Review. Although the main focus was the Book of Mormon, evolution was dragged into the discussion.

Meldrum's website has a number of free downloads, including a handy little compilation of many of the bad things past prophets have said about evolution. In some cases (e.g. Joseph Smith) the statements are not directly about evolution, but are nevertheless used as ammunition. In other cases (esp. Joseph Fielding Smith), statements and writings before their becoming president of the Church are grandfathered in. Also, someone has helpfully underlined and bolded all of the important parts, in order to assist hitting you over the head.

The document is said to have been compiled by one James Stoddard, who is the president of ZionVison. In case you need further bludgeoning, check out their video, Creation and Evolution: A Witness of Prophets. You can get a taste of it by looking at these trailers. You can also read a transcript of the video here.

In addition to argument from authority, the video is long on another logical fallacy: appeal to consequences. In classic form, the video blames evolution for various evils in society, such as Hitler and the Columbine massacre. There is also a little bit of traditional quote-mining--more likely recycled quote-mining (example).

I think my favorite part is where it refers to BYU zoologist Duane Jeffery as "one modern biologist, who rejects the miracles of the scriptures," and who "has spent much of his life promoting the theories of Darwinism while belittling the words of latter-day Prophets of God." One wonders how he hung on to his job all those years! Of course the movie doesn't mention his career at BYU. More on that in a minute. The movie charges,

He has given this rationale for his rejection of the miracle of the flood: “Can one really fit ten million species onto a single ocean-going vessel, feed and care for them all with their often very restrictive diets or living conditions (many of which we are helpless to duplicate even with modern systems), and keep it all going with just eight people for an entire year? The answer, plainly, is no.”

I'll bet that's the least of the reasons Jeffery rejects a universal flood. (For more on the flood, see here.)

Toward the end, the movie starts to really lay it on thick. We are told that there are only two forces in this world (presumably good and evil). Then the law of witnesses is invoked along with woe pronounced against those who reject such witnesses. Speaking of witnesses, it's interesting to note how the power of General Authority quotes can be shaped by how they are introduced. "Elder so-and-so stated his opinion that..." doesn't quite pack the same puch as, "Elder so-and-so testified..." or "Elder so-and-so gave his witness..." So naturally, the movie describes the quotes with these terms.

There is no mention of more moderate sentiments expressed by Church leaders like David O. McKay, Heber J. Grant, Stephen L. Richards, James E. Talmage, or John A. Widtsoe, or even some of the allegedly hostile leaders, nor of the views expressed by such prominent Mormons as Henry Eyring. You also won't learn from the video that evolution is taught at BYU. Not only taught, but researched as well. These factors may or may not weigh heavily in how a person views evolution, and given the polemical agenda of the movie their absence is understandable. However, they do tend to undercut the implied message of the movie that the fate of your soul hangs in the balance based on your view of the science.

There is obviously some kind of affiliation between ZionVision and Brigham Young Academy.org (which, in case you are curious, is a sister to the Joseph Smith Academy.org, both of which are divisions of the Joseph Smith Foundation. None are affiliated with the Church.) They have compiled an impressive polemic of an FAQ on evolution, some of which contains exact passages from the movie. It's NDBF on steroids! (No relationship; I checked.) These folks are hard-core; they even call out FAIR (arguably the best LDS apologetic organization out there) and accuse it of mocking, ridiculing, and fighting against "the clear scriptural teachings and witnesses of the Prophets of God." Other honorees include Michael Ash, Steve Peck, and David Bailey. If they wanted to be thorough, they really should have included Hugh Nibley, too. (Yours truly somehow didn't make the list, in spite of almost six years of blogging. Do I have that little influence? I guess I can take some consolation that Mormons and Evolution, a group blog that I participated in for a while, is listed.)

Dealing With General Authority Statements

Although pronouncements by authorities do not determine the truth or falsity of a proposition (hence the logical fallacy), we look to the prophets and apostles as a source of truth, and their thoughts deserve consideration. This style of argumentation, where one is made to feel like s/he is rejecting the prophets, can therefore be quite difficult and frustrating to grapple with because, in its strongest form, there can be no counter-argument. Attempting to do so only validates the perception that you reject the prophets. And yet, we who defend science cannot remain silent or else the authoritarian bullies will be the only ones heard. So what can we do when confronted with such material? Here are a few suggestions to consider.

1. Recognize that these lists of General Authority statements are not merely intended to be informative. They are compiled in such a way as to give rhetorical advantage, and they are often embedded within an implied overarching narrative. Different statements could be strung together for a different effect (example). Consideration should be given to the full range of views expressed along with historical and cultural context. Resist efforts to reduce everything down to a simple black-and-white, good-and-evil story.

2. The cover letter to the BYU evolution packet, prepared in 1992 by the Board of Trustees (which includes the First Presidency), states: "Various views have been expressed by other Church leaders on this subject over many decades; however, formal statements by the First Presidency are the definitive source of official Church positions." Don't feel a need to reconcile every statement--even those by prophets.

3. When you dig below the surface of General Authority statements critical of evolution (or other science), it often turns out that they are actually defending some deeper principle such as the existence of God, morality, inspiration of scripture, etc. Be clear that you agree with the deeper principle.

4. Recognize that the zeal of the anti-evolution crusader is not reflected in the broader Church program. Many people who accept evolution serve as bishops and stake presidents, evolution is taught without apology in the science classes at Church schools, and Church-owned Deseret Book occasionally publishes books that are friendly--or at least moderate--toward evolution (eg. Mormon Scientist, Of Heaven and Earth, and Lenthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball).

5. Study and use the example of Henry Eyring. During his life he successfully navigated these waters and is still held in high esteem in LDS culture.

---