Is there a Time Lord?

Eyes in Space

Bertrand Russell in his 1952 essay, Is there a God? demonstrated that there is clear evidence that the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, god of traditional western philosophy doesn’t exist.

The argument he made wasn’t new. It can be found in the, allegedly ancient Greek, Epicurean paradox.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

If evil exists, and there is evidence that it does, any God that exists must be, less than omnipotent, and/or less than omnibenevolent.

The god of traditional western philosophy therefore does not exist.

From this perspective, it is difficult to understand why Russell chose to conclude his argument with this rather weak conclusion.

My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.

Bertrand Russell Is there a God? Commissioned, but not published by Illustrated Magazine in 1952

Why go for the, ‘no reason to believe,‘ option, when he could have gone for the option, not only is there no reason to believe, but there is good reason not to believe?

Perhaps it is because he understood, that his argument, like the Epicurean paradox isn’t an argument against the existence of God, merely a claim that he has been mislabelled.  Any God that might really exist doesn’t meet the standards set by the philosopher’s definition, of maximal greatness.  And is therefore not the god of traditional Western Theology.

There are ways of understanding the concepts of omnipotence, and/or evil that appear to falsify the Epicurean Paradox, but all of these arguments are like the paradox itself, arguments about definition, rather than fact.  Why bother?

While it is peculiar that Russell claimed merely that there was no reason to believe that, for which there was very good reason not to believe; it is not at all strange that he should say that there is no reason to wish that such a monster as he describes , should exist.

Peter Capaldi as Dr Who

Peter Capaldi as Dr Who

This is not the God of the human heart, the God that is loved.  That God, like Peter Capaldi’s Time Lord, in the BBC series Dr Who, is the God that, no matter what the appearances may be,  cares  about us, has our back.

Within Christianity, where you find the notion of God’s Omnipotence being pushed as a sign of orthodoxy, there you will also find that while the lip service is being offered to power, the adoration isn’t going there.  It is bestowed on Christ, or  on the Lady Mary.

Beings that the Bible tells us had the characteristics of that which, in the very last sentence of his famous essay, Bertrand Russell recognised as ultimate greatness; i.e. there were occasions when they were not subject to natural forces.

Man in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny.  The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.

Bertrand Russell Is there a God? Commissioned, but not published by Illustrated Magazine in 1952

This abstraction of Russell’s, this Who’s the Daddy of Man, is every bit as much a supernatural being as the one he has spent the rest of the essay demolishing.

If you can find any part of humankind that is not subject to natural forces, then naturalism is falsified.

One of the things that I find interesting about Bertrand Russell’s, ” Is there a God,” and Richard Dawkins , “The God Delusion,” is that they both concentrate on disproving the existence of a god, that logically can’t exist.  In Dawkin’s case he ends up arguing not that the impossible god doesn’t exist, but that his existence is just very improbable. From the point of view of a theist this argument is just funny.  This is just a version of the ontological argument.  If that which exists beyond the universe is infinite, and if there is any probability of this god existing at all, then Richard Dawkin’s has proved that the existence of the Impossible is certain.

Many of us experience life as though we are, at least on occasion, interacting directly with a consciousness not our own.  I am not necessarily adverse to Richard Dawkin’s hypothesis, that this is just the imaginary friend experience carried on beyond childhood.

This certainly seems the most probable explanation. but then as discussed earlier, probability arguments don’t really work, when you are dealing with a possible infinity.

Consciousness, and by that I don’t mean information processing, but the ability to feel: pleasure, pain, emotion, is peculiar.  I know that it is something that can be achieved in a machine, because I am a biological machine, and yet I don’t understand how it is done.  I am amazed to be living on a planet, where the dust has given rise to this mystery.

Consciousness is so amazing that it doesn’t strike me as necessarily ridiculous to believe that the universe, or even the multiverse is part of a  process aimed at its reproduction. Nor does it strike me as necessarily impossible that this feeling of other consciousness, that some of us experience, has a reality that extends beyond the human.

However I do think it is reasonable to look for evidence, before jumping to the conclusion that this is either true or untrue.  The rational position is strict agnosticism, because while we have reason not to believe in celestial teapots – we know what china teapots are, and how unlikely it is that one, could not only get into orbit, but also survive in the extremes of outer space ; we don’t even understand how consciousness is created in ourselves.

It has occurred to me that the position of  any God who wanted to prove that he wasn’t a figment of our imagination or part of a con , might be similar to that of a time travelling alien out to save the world.

This is a position I dealt with in previous posts, “Is There a Teapot?” and “Beginnings Chapter 1.”

In the Alternative Universe of,  “Is There a Teapot?”  the holy scripture is the, “Book of River Song.”  And the contents of “River Song,” prove the falsity of the alternate Bertrand Russell’s claim the one that is equivalent to our Bertrand Russell’s, “there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology.”

In ironical voice, where he mocks the over certainty of the adoctorists, Russell says that there is no reason to believe any of the teachings of River Song.

This is of course not true. For instance the book  states that the earth had  a beginning (Beginnings Chapter 1 verse 1) and that there is more than one universe, i.e. the host of the heavens. (Beginnings Chapter 2  Verse 1) It would be very strange if a book containing as much information as River Song was not in agreement with modern  knowledge in some places, even if entirely by accident.

 Linda Bailey Is there a Teapot? June 2013

In this universe the same holds true, there is good scientific reason to believe that the earth had a beginning, and this was true even in 1952, when “Is there a God,” was written, and there is reason to believe that there is a multiverse i.e.more than one universe.  And in our universe Genesis 1:1 tells us that the earth had a beginning  and Genesis 2:1 talks about a plurality of heavens. (N.B. The word that is translated as heaven in Genesis 1:1 in the King James Bible, is identical to the word that is translated as heavens in Genesis 2:1.  The Hebrew word is in the plural.)

Of course as in the alternative universe, these two correlations are compatible with coincidence.  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

It would take a lot more co-incidences between ancient scripture and modern science, to leave   coincidence an improbability.

In the alternate universe of “Is there a Teapot?”  The first chapter of their holy book, Beginnings Chapter 1, a fusion of Genesis 1, and our scientific story of the earth’s history, provides these co-incidences by matching exactly the scientific discoveries of their scientists with the ancient scriptures.

There are reasons, apart from the fact that I have a clear recollection of having made it up, for believing that this alternate universe does not exist.

Firstly, if scripture is to be passed through time, it requires its first hearers, and at least some of every succeeding generation, to hold it in enough reverence to ensure that it is copied and passed on.  This is extremely unlikely to happen if it portrays a world that is vastly at odds with that which the  first generation, and to a lesser extent subsequent generations believe to actually exist.

Secondly it is likely that a science, that served only to confirm scripture would be regarded as a minor branch of teapotology, their equivalent of theology, and held in no great esteem. It would be unfit to independently verify anything.

This is not true in our universe, where some religious fundamentalists attempt to gain respectability for their interpretation of scripture, covering it with a great big fig leaf labelled Scientific Creationism.

It isn’t just fundamentalists who have attempted to force a correlation between scripture and science, a point made by Stephen Gould in “Bully for Brontosaurus,” in a chapter entitled Genesis and Geology.

There he recounts the tale of a dispute, which took place in the late 19th century, between a former British Prime Minister, William Gladstone , and the biologist,Thomas Huxley.

Gladstone, based on his reading of Genesis made a probability argument for the existence of God. He argued that the appearance of animals in Genesis: first the water population, then the air population, followed, by the terrestrial population, and lastly man – is what the fossil record shows.  He argued that this was such a great coincidence that it could only be achieved by the writer of Genesis being gifted beyond belief, or divine intervention.

This argument doesn’t say a lot for Gladstone’s maths.  When ordering 4 different objects or pieces of information, there are only 24 different permutations. If in an exam you were asked to place 4 events in temporal order, you would have a 1 in 24 chance using straight forward guesswork of getting the answer correct.  This is more probable than throwing a double 6 in a dice game, not something that is generally thought of as proof of divine intervention.

Of course there is a 23 in 24 chance of getting the order wrong, and Huxley didn’t waste too much time in proving that the order that Gladstone was suggesting was incompatible with the findings of what was then modern science.

Huxley pointed out that there is clear evidence from the fossil record and from the morphology of birds and bats that terrestrial animals existed before the animals of the air.

He also argued that Gladstone should have included the plants in his argument.  (When you are ordering 5 pieces of information, there are 120 different permutations.  There is only a 1 in 120 chance of getting the temporal order correct by chance.)

Huxley wanted the plants included in the argument because he had noted that the description of the plants given in Genesis 1:11-12, the fruit trees, and other plants with enclosed seeds, identified them as angiosperms, the flowering plants.  These appear late in the fossil record, but are the first living organisms to be listed in Genesis.

Modern Scientific evidence shows that flowering plants diversified during the Cretaceous period, the last portion of the age of dinosaurs. And that there is some evidence that they may have been in existence throughout the age of dinosaurs.

In fact had Gladstone had access to modern scientific knowledge, been a bit better at statistics, and had gone for Genesis ordering correctly the times for the diversification of modern type lifeforms rather than first appearance of water, air and land animals, he could have argued that there was only a 1 in 120 chance of the following correlation happening by chance.

The flowering plants, which Genesis records as sprouting forth in the latter half of Day 3, scientific evidence shows as diversifying in the latter part of the age of dinosaurs, the Cretaceous.

The age of dinosaurs ended with a mass extinction, which modern science links to an asteroid collision with the earth around 65 million years ago.

The next readily identifiable creature mentioned in Genesis is the whale.  The word which is translated  as whale in the King James Bible, is more literally translated as great sea monster.  These appear in Day 5 in Genesis.  The first whales  appear in the fossil record around 55 million years ago.  This coincides with the diversification of modern bird groups. Winged fowls are mentioned as multiplying in day 5 of the Genesis account.

The rise of widespread grassland about 15 million years ago, resulted in a burst of animal diversification, a proliferation of  grazing animals, predators and the bi-pedal apes – our ancestors and related species. This happened after the origin of whales, in the same temporal position as Genesis describes the earth bringing forth, the living creature, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth. Another co-incidence.

Modern man, the not very modestly self-identified Homo sapiens, is a late appearance on the scene of life, according to both palaeontologists and Genesis.

And if you take into account the non-biological events mentioned there are still more co-incidences.

The flowering plants arose during the age of dinosaurs, the Mesozoic Era. The period prior to the start of the age of dinosaurs, the Permian, had seen the formation of the supercontinent Pangaea. When tectonic plate activity had resulted in smaller continents coalescing into one large continent, with one would suspect the mother of all continental weather systems – a dry land. This was surrounded by one ocean Panthalassa.  Or as Genesis 1:9 has it all the waters of the earth gathered into one place and the dry land appeared.

It is surprisingly easy to correlate the events of Genesis 1, with the findings of modern science.  Something I had fun with when I wrote, Beginnings Chapter 1.

It answers a question, that I asked of God, when I was teenager.  If you wanted us to believe that you created the world that really exists, why didn’t the Bible get it right.  I hadn’t at the time figured out that he hadn’t written the book himself.

The Genesis account was capable of telling the people for whom it was originally written that God had created the real world. It is still capable of telling us that God made the world that really is.  That makes it a fairly amazing piece of writing.

What it cannot do is prove the existence of God. There is no matter of fact that could make this a necessary conclusion. Even an inability to think of another explanation, would not prove that such an explanation did not exist.

To go from believing to not believing in God, or vice-versa is a paradigm shift. Not a matter of merely thinking one less or one more thing about reality, but a total change in the way you view reality.   A paradigm shift is, and I sympathise with those atheists who object to the phrase, always “a leap of faith.”

Douglas Adam’s provided a much better metaphor in his Dirk Gently novel, “The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul.”  It’s like, ‘a turn through half a molecule,’  everything is the same, and yet everything is different. A metaphor that works both ways.

Is there a Teapot?

Madame VargaA study of socially held belief in an alternate universe where catholic, protestant but not reformed Teapotianism is the official belief system of the Anglican Church.  And where Richard Dawkins is the most famous Teapotian of his day.  Recently voted the Great Intelligence, he is an ardent campaigner for reform of the Church of England to reflect the discoveries of modern science.Book of River Song

The scripture of the Teapotian belief system is, “The Book of River Song.”

The title of this essay is identical with one published by the philosopher, satirist and non-conformist Teapotian Bertrand Russell in 1952.  In this essay he mocked the tendency of adoctorists to bolster the certainty of their case by setting up ridiculous straw men, or in this case an orbiting china teapot. Then claiming that the fact that you can’t prove that they don’t exist means that you can be certain that the Alien Being, who they mockingly call Doctor Who, doesn’t exist.

The logic clearly isn’t there, and Bertrand Russell was, like the great Jonathan Swift, writing in a voice not his own.

Sadly many Teapotians were offended by what they regarded as an appalling display of disrespect for a symbol that represents all that they hold dear, and therefore rejected the rest of his message. A mistake not made by Richard Dawkins.

The teapot is an important symbol to all Teapotians. The sharing of tea is an important sacrament for the alternate universe Anglicans. In this sacrament they celebrate the return to earth of an Alien Being – The Raggedy Man.

The Raggedy Man

The Raggedy Man

The Raggedy Man introduced humanity to the teapot as a symbol of community and acceptance. Prior to his return and the introduction of the tea drinking custom, the teapot had been an instrument of torture and execution. It  had been used to force poisonous or extremely hot liquids into unwilling human victims.

The alternate Bertrand Russell argues in his, “Is there a teapot,” essay that just because the Book of River Song has been in existence, and believed to reveal Truth about the Time Lord sometimes  known as the Raggedy Man, for a very long time, is not sufficient to prove whether or not  it is  a work of purely human invention. Evidence is needed before a rational decision can be taken to veer, in either direction, from the strictly agnostic position .

In ironical voice, where he mocks the over certainty of the adoctorists, Russell says that there is no reason to believe any of the teachings of River Song.

This is of course not true. For instance the book  states that the earth had  a beginning (Beginnings Chapter 1 verse 1) and that there is more than one universe, i.e. the host of the heavens. (Beginnings Chapter 2  Verse 1) It would be very strange if a book containing as much information as River Song was not in agreement with modern  knowledge in some places, even if entirely by accident.

Just because something was written a long time ago is not sufficient cause to claim it is either true or false.

As to the orbiting teapot claim: there are several instances in River Song where it is stated that the Time Lord placed his sign over the earth, or between the earth and the destroyer.  At no stage is it anything like as specific as Bertrand Russell suggests, and there is small reason to believe that this sign refers to a teapot and non whatsoever to suggest  that it is made of china. Whether this sign has any material reality or is purely metaphysical is much disputed among Teapotians, but is at base an empirical matter.

The Book of River Song

 Book pf River Song

This book consists of a series of writings by many different human authors made over a long period of time.  It records the dealings of one member of a race of Super Beings – the Time Lords – with humankind.

It is claimed that much of the writing in this book was produced by people who had been directly influenced by River Song – the strong, breasted and very womanly Spirit of the Living Time Lord.

This description is a direct translation from a section of the book entitled Beginnings, which describes a series of trips a Time Lord – sometimes  identified as the Raggedy Man made to the primitive earth.

River Song

River Song

 Not all Teapotians accept that the Spirit of the Time Lord is female.  These masculinists argue that – the strong, breast-plated and manly Spirit more accurately captures the essential meaning of the scripture. Therefore they claim, despite all evidence being to the contrary, that this is the literal translation.

Many of these masculinists are also dayists, claiming that, that which the Time Lord was able to see in one day, must have happened over a 24 hour period, and that the findings of modern science are therefore false.

They insist that theirs is the literal interpretation of Beginnings. This is despite the fact that Beginnings Chapter 1 has a persistent refrain at the conclusion of each visit.

The morning and the evening were the first day.  Beginnings chapter 1 verse 5

This formula is repeated for each  day that the Time Lord visited.

A Sontorasn Mascu;linist

A Masculinist

A morning and an evening do not make a 24 hour period, on the alternate earth anymore than they do on ours. It therefore seems clear that dayists, like masculinists, are using the term “literal,” in a rather technical and esoteric sense.

Bertrand Russell, in both universes, noted that the fact that something has been believed for a long time is not sufficient to make it true.  Richard Dawkins agrees noting that all it proves is that some of those holding the belief lived long enough to pass it on.

Corroborating evidence is required before any belief long-held or otherwise can rationally be held as true.  We have seen that some of River Song has been corroborated by modern science.  (N.B. The claim of some dayists and masculinists that all of River Song is inerrant is new to Teapotianism.  Inerrancy is something they didn’t even expect you to believe in Calvin’s Geneva.) Other parts are seen to be true by everyday experience.

E.g. The rain it falleth on the just, and on the unjust fellow.

Nash Chapter 3 Verse 2

None of these truths are sufficient to prove that River Song is a work of extraterrestrial Revelation, rather than a work of human knowledge and imagination, with some coincidental correlations with the findings of modern science.

It would take a considerable number of correlations with modern science before it would be reasonable to conclude that unaided human reason and chance could not account for  the so-called Revelation of River Song.  Richard Dawkins is convinced that just such a correlation can be found between the findings of science and Beginnings Chapter 1, the story of the Time Lord’s trips to primitive earth.

The extreme certainty expressed by the masculinist, dayists and by Richard Dawkins and his supporters, and their rejection of those who hold different views as truth deniers has caused considerable concern to many in the Anglican community.  Anglicans have historically tolerated a wide range of views, even welcoming to their ceremonies those who believe in God.  Richard Dawkins says that this is unacceptable.  While River Song provides, evidence for the existence and involvement with humanity of an Alien other, that Alien cannot be a God.  A God would have to be  much more intelligent than the brightest of the brights, and even with all infinity to play with Dr Dawkins reckons this is against the laws of probability.

Richard Dawkins is campaigning vociferously for the excommunication of theists from the church arguing that the problem is not just that their beliefs are false, but that belief in God is what causes good people to do evil.

Thoughtful teapotologians have argued that horrors such as the inquisition were the result not of belief in God, but of rational certainty and the belief that everyone had a duty to believe the truth that logic had imparted.

As Bertrand Russell pointed out in his,”Is there a Teapot,” essay the scholastic philosophers of the mediaeval church believed that they had proved beyond doubt the existence of God by arguments such as First Cause. It is this  rational certainty, rather than their belief in God that the American philosopher William James,  held to be the instigating factor which led to the inquisition, in our universe as well as the alternate.

Anglicans for many generations, including those who believed in God, have managed to avoid teapot related violence. They have done so by taking as their motto, “We see now, with difficulty, as through stained glass,” and by preaching that the only requirement for taking part in their ceremonies is the acknowledgement that you too might be wrong.

For moderate Anglicans, especially those with a historical perspective, these new assertions of religious intolerance, from the masculinist dayists and Richard Dawkins,  strike terror in their hearts for the church they know and love.

Beginnings Chapter 1

River Song (Doctor Who)

River Song (Doctor Who) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A study of the scripture of an alternate universe, where ancient revelation is supported by modern science. And where it is rational to believe in the existence of a being capable of having left a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars. Even here  the existence of the teapot is an empirical matter – one that can only be decided on the basis of evidence.

(1) In the beginning the Time Lord visited the heavens and the earth.  (2) And the earth was molten and void of life. Darkness covered the earth . (3) And there was  River Song; the strong, breasted and very womanly spirit of the Living Time Lord. (4) As the Time Lord watched the darkness cleared and there was light.  And the Time Lord saw that the light was day and the darkness it was night. (5) And the morning and the evening were the first day.

(6) As the Time Lord watched a mist rose from the earth, and separated the water filled clouds from the waters beneath. (7) And the Time Lord saw that the mist was  atmosphere. (8) And the morning and the evening were the second day.

English: Pangea animation

English: Pangea animation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

(9) As the Time Lord watched, the waters under the atmosphere gathered together into one sea and a dry continent appeared. (10) And the Time Lord saw that the dry land was Pangaea and the sea was Panthalassa. (11) Then as the Time Lord watched, the land brought forth flowering plants – herbs and fruit trees bearing fruits with covered seeds.  It brought forth grass also. (12) And the Time Lord saw that it was good. (13) And the morning and the evening were the third day.

(14) As the Time Lord watched an asteroid, the mighty Lucifer, fell to earth and everywhere was darkness and death. (16) Then the two great lights appeared and the stars also.  (17) They shone through the atmosphere.  (18) The greater light ruled the day and the smaller the night. (19) And the morning and the evening were the fourth day.whale eye

(20) As the Time Lord watched the water brought forth the moving creature that breathes and water fowl flew above the earth, in the open firmament of the atmosphere.  (21) Time passed and the moving creatures, became great whales and other thinking creatures that breathe, and birds increased in the earth. (22) The Time Lord spoke to the whales and other living creatures, but with the fowls he could not speak. (23) And the morning and the evening were the fifth day.

cave painting of wild cattle


rabbit and sun

a lagomorph.

(24) As the Time Lord watched grassland spread, and the earth brought forth upright apes, cattle, lagomorphs, and creeping beasts of prey.  (25) The cattle brought forth after their kind, as did the lagomorphs and creeping beasts of prey, but of the upright apes only  humankind remained. (26) And the Time Lord saw in humankind the image of himself.  (27) And the Time Lord saw that humankind had dominion over the fish of the seas, and over the fowl of the air, and over all the cattle, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (28) And the Time Lord spoke to humankind and said, “If you rule wisely, you will live long and prosper, and the earth will sustain you till the sun and moon are no more. (29) You will eat freely of the herbs bearing seed, and of the fruit of every tree.  The earth will also sustain the creatures in your care. (30) And the Time Lord saw that everything was good. (31) And the morning and the evening were the sixth day


It is widely accepted on the alternate earth that science has been able to confirm the accuracy of the origin myth of a widely held belief system  -Teapotianism.

On the alternate earth, Ireland has been united for about 400 million years, ever since the formation of Pangaea.  The collision that united Ireland, raised the Appalachians in America, and produced the great crack that is Loch Ness in Scotland.

The flowering plants and grass did not appear on earth until after this collision.  It has been known for many years that flowering plants evolved in the Age of Dinosaurs.  It is only recently that evidence for grass has been discovered in fossilised dinosaur dung.  This has been hailed by leading Teapotian, and Oxford Professor for the Public understanding of Science, Richard Dawkins as a victory for the predictive power of Scripture.

The darkness after Lucifer fell is implicated in the death of the dinosaurs and the great sea, and sky reptiles.  This left niches in the sea, sky and land ready to be filled by birds and mammals.  Modern type whales and birds appear  in the fossil record of the alternate universe, before modern type land animals, which are associated with grassland.

The grassland habitat spread when the climate changed, and it is on these grasslands that the upright apes (hominids) appeared.  Humankind in the alternate universe is the last of the upright apes.

Richard Dawkins in his role as Professor for the Public Understanding of Science has argued that of course Beginnings Chapter 1 is falsifiable.  “Rabbits (lagomorphs) in the Precambrian would blow it out of the water.”

Of course Dr Dawkins is not simple-minded enough to believe in the actual existence of either River Song or the Time Lord.  He argues that Occam’s Razor is the way to truth, and the simplest possible interpretation of known facts must therefore be the truth. Beginnings Chapter 1 was written in the bronze age, and he claims there is no way that this degree of  scientific accuracy could have been obtained by primitive tribesmen, even if they had the help of their women folk. He therefore concludes that they must have obtained outside, i.e. extraterrestrial help. But as he says in his book, The God Illusion, the Time Lord is too godlike a figure to be real, and time travel produces to many paradoxes to be possible, therefore we have to conclude that Beginnings provides evidence that alien scientists once visited the earth and left evidence in the writings  and cultures of ancient civilisations  for their existence.


The followers of NOMa, have got serious concerns about the above interpretation, arguing that scripture and science exist as Non Overlapping Magisteria. They are concerned that the scientists may have been unduly influenced by their exposure to scripture, and that  findings such as grass in the time  of the dinosaurs and the evolution of modern birds and whales, prior to modern cattle and humans may have been unduly influenced by this exposure. 

Harvard Professor Stephen Gould had other concerns. He argued that Beginnings is a work of human knowledge and creativity, and that in giving credit to the Time Lord and River Song for inspiring it, we are failing to give sufficient credit to the original authors of this work. He argued that all the co-incidences between Beginnings and modern science could be explained by human knowledge and coincidence, and that there is therefore no need to invoke extraterrestrial help. Of course he made these claims before it was known that grass existed in the age of dinosaurs..

N.B.  While Beginnings is part of Teapotian scripture, it is much older than the Teapotian belief system, and originated with an earlier, and some would say more black and white belief system, that of the bronze age, Whovians.  William Hartnell as Doctor Who