Rama Singh, professor of biology at Canada’s McMaster University, says: “The opposition to evolution goes beyond religious fundamentalism and includes a great many people from educated sections of the population.”
There is no reference given for where this quote is taken but I assure you, this is a truncation of what Professor Singh actually said. Truncating Singh and not providing a reference for their quote is quite convenient for WBTS. Why? Because giving the reference would diminish the power of their argument. Furthermore, truth-seekers who may like to read the full quote from Professor Singh may find that the writer(s) of the article haven’t been fully truthful. Indeed, they lead the reader of the article to believe that Professor Singh is a believer in creation, by the manner in how their question is worded in the next paragraph.
Why is it that even some scientifically-minded people have trouble accepting evolution as the origin of life?
Does Professor Singh have trouble accepting evolution as the origin of life? To answer this question, we need to find the source of the material from which WBTS quoted Professor Singh. The source for the article is found at NRC Research Press. The article is found here: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/full/10.1139/g11-046E. If one were to scroll down to the heading “Why evolution has not become a common sense“, we find the quote from Rama Singh.
The full quote – without truncation – is as follows:
The opposition to evolution goes beyond religious fundamentalism and includes a great many people from educated sections of the population, including biologists, nonbiologists, and the lay public. This essay will focus on the lack of belief in evolution in this latter group; opposition from religious fundamentalism has been covered in many places (Kitcher 1982; Futuyma 1983; Montagu 1984;Young 1985; Gould 1999; Dawkins 2006; Coyne 2009). There are several reasons why facts of evolution are not easily comprehensible by the general masses.
Professor Singh admits that many “educated sections of the population … lack … belief in evolution” but he goes on to state that “There are several reasons why facts of evolution are not easily comprehensible by the general masses” indicating that he believes in evolution by way of saying “facts of evolution”. Also, why did he write the article?
His reason for writing the article is given in the article, within the last paragraph:
The motivation for this article came from friends and colleagues in the humanities and social sciences who are seriously interested in dialogues between evolution and religion but who lack appreciation for the subtleties of evolution. This article is dedicated to them.
So, to quote Professor Singh correctly, the Awake! writers would have to admit that Professor Singh was taken out of context to ensure their readers are duped into thinking that proponents of evolution are actually believers in the biblical creation story. There’s lies, lies and misquotations. They are all still lies. And the Father of the Lie? (John 8:44). Go figure.