Sir David Attenborough: A Personal Critique

The world-wide celebrated naturalist Sir David Attenborough is fast approaching his one hundredth birthday, if it please the Lord to spare him in His mercy.

Here in the U.K. there is an outcry for him to be honoured by marking his birthday with a Bank Holiday. An indication of how he is revered in this country. Unending plaudits saturate the internet, with barely any suggestion of jis obvious fallibility and rejection of the Word of God. 

He is a natural historian of considerable experience spanning four decades. And he has been marvellously privileged in witnessing more wonders of God's creation, than any man since Adam. But with his "mind blinded by the god of this world" he is effectively grossly ignorant. he practically admits this in his claim to be an "agnostic:" "One who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." So, he does not know and he cannot know anything of the revelation of the Creator in the beautiful creation scene that he has studied for decades!

He was responsible for foisting the blasphemous Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man," a title so diametrically opposed to the witness granted to man in the written Word of God, and in the spiritual instruction found in the natural world.

Attenborough described humans as "a plague in the earth." We dare not consider this statement anything less than awful blasphemy against the incarnate Son of God.

He spoke of sending food to famine -stricken countries as "barmy." And according to Attenborough improving "women's rights" around the world is an effective way to limit our birth-rate. 

In 2002 he joined "leading" clerics and scientists to oppose the inclusion of creationism in the curriculum of U.K. state-funded schools. While today The Theory of Evolution is a legal requirement in that same curriculum.

Sir David Attenborough is also a member of a secret society, which should actually be banned as unlawful, but the Act that determines it such will never be enforced. He is a member of the Newbury and West Berkshire Lodge, he is a freemason, but if you want to access this material without this information, you will spend countless hours searching, I did-because back in the late 1980's until the early 1990's I was involved in the Bookselling Trade; part of my remit was dealing with numerous "Reps" acting for any number of Publishing Houses. And in 1984 two fo Sir David's brothers prevented (though temporarily) the publication of a book exposing something of the evils of Freemasonry. They exerted colossal pressure on the Publisher to cancel the first print-run at the very last moment. They asserted it was in due deference to their father who was a prominent Freemason. But the book was published very soon afterwards by a rival Publishing House. A consequence of the halt placed upon the book's publication cost the reluctant Publisher an immense sum, not to speak of the revenue that accrued to their rival company. the publication in question is 

"The Brotherhood" by Stephen Knight. 

                                           

I well remember the anger of Freemasons from every quarter, they were irate beyond measure. But the quickly realised that silence was the best defence and the furore over many of the revelations within the book soon died down and slowly drained away completely. Other such books arrived on the scene but never caused the Masons any problems comparable with "The Brotherhood."  

My "critique" as I have referred to it, is not borne of malice against Sir David, just a lone cry for some intelligent evaluation of this man who is almost single-handedly leading the blind into the ditch with himself when they espouse his "teachings" without due diligence as to its eternal consequences.

Perhaps the Lord in His infinite mercy may yet touch Sir David's heart and save him from an eternity of loss, and eternity of agony and anguish of soul and spirit.