My position is quite simple. To compare someone to Darwin is, to my mind, suggesting they have made a major and original contribution to the structure of natural science. After all, Darwin was to biology what Einstein or Maxwell was to physics, or Mendele'ev to chemistry. David Attenborough is a very, very talented broadcaster. He is an exceptional teacher, in effect. He is not a scientific original thinker. So he belongs in quite a different category from Darwin and the other giants of scientific discovery. That is all. More than one person has suggested in this thread that I am trying to belittle Attenborough in some way, and speculated about personal motives I might have for doing so. I have no reason at all to do such a thing. But, equally, I am not going to go along with endowing him with attributes he does not possess, just because it has become fashionable to make him into a popular saint.