The Lighthouse

…and does it matter? Geological evidence against ‘millions of years’.

Paul Garner’s final and longest article explores the plausibility of a creationist worldview.

One of the major tenets of ‘young-Earth creationism’ is the idea that the Earth was supernaturally created by God in six days about 6,000 years ago. This position stands in marked contrast to the conventional view that the Earth was formed by naturalistic processes about 4.6 billion years ago, a position maintained by both old-Earth creationists and theistic evolutionists.

In my previous articles, I considered some of the theological consequences of embracing the idea of an old Earth. Most significantly, the old-Earth position means accepting that death and bloodshed, sickness and disease, violence and natural disasters were all part of the world that God declared “very good” in the beginning. This inevitably affects how we understand Christ’s atonement, and in particular why he had to physically suffer and die to pay the penalty of sin. I concluded that only the young-Earth position enables us to make sense of the theological data.

But young-Earth creationists face what we might call a plausibility problem. So ingrained is the old-Earth view, not only in the scientific community but in wider culture, that to challenge it seems ridiculous to most thinking people. It does not seem reasonable to suggest that geologists might have got the question of the Earth’s age so wrong or that the rock layers they study might have been laid down in a short time rather than over millions of years.

So if young-Earth creationism is to gain a hearing – even among Christians – the problem of plausibility must be addressed. In this article I am going to explore this problem with a look at the Earth’s sedimentary rock record, regarded by many as the primary evidence for the old-Earth model.

Young-Earth creationists face a plausibility problem: challenging the old-Earth view seems ridiculous to most thinking people.

The Sedimentary Rock Record

Earth’s continents are covered with fossil-bearing sedimentary rock averaging about 1,500-2,000m thick, though much thicker in some places.¹ These rocks originated as layers of (usually) water-deposited sediment (such as sand, silt and clay) that were subsequently compacted and cemented into rock.

The question facing us concerns how quickly these sediments were laid down. Were they deposited during a one-year flood and its aftermath - as inferred from the Bible by young-Earth creationists - or over hundreds of millions of years, as inferred from radiometric dating by old-Earth creationists and theistic evolutionists?

Radiometric dating refers to the methods used by geologists to assign ages of millions or billions of years to the rocks and minerals of the Earth’s crust. As noted in my previous articles, radiometric dating methods use the decay of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes as a kind of ‘geological clock’. Radiometric dating can only rarely be applied directly to sedimentary rocks, but it can be applied to igneous rocks (such as lava flows and volcanic ash deposits) interbedded with the sedimentary rocks, thus dating the sediments indirectly.

It is important to recognise that radiometric dates have a kind of inherent plausibility. First, they yield actual numbers, with error bars. For example, the Cardenas Basalt in the Grand Canyon of Arizona can be assigned a radiometric age of 1,111 million years plus or minus 81 million years.² This fact alone lends radiometric dates an air of precision – although precision, of course, is not the same as accuracy!³

Moreover, radiometric dates generally reflect the sequence in which rock units are known to have formed, on the basis of other geological evidence (see the example in Figure 1).⁴ In other words, older rocks tend to give older radiometric dates; younger rocks tend to give younger radiometric dates – thereby making the dates appear even more plausible.

Figure 1. Radiometric dating results accurately reflect the order in which rock units were formed. This block diagram depicts the rock layers in the walls of the Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA, including the rock units deep in the inner gorge along the Colorado River. Despite variations and uncertainties, the rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr) radiometric ‘clock’ correctly shows that the Brahma amphibolites and Elves Chasm granodiorite are older than the Cardenas Basalt and Bass Rapids dolerite sill, and all four rock units in the inner gorge are older than the horizontal sedimentary layers in the canyon walls. After Snelling, AA, 2010. Radiometric dating: making sense of the patterns. Answers 5(1):72-75.So, how do young-Earth creationists address the challenges posed by radiometric dating?

One approach is to challenge the assumptions underlying dating techniques, for example assumptions about the initial conditions, the constancy of decay rates or contamination of the samples being dated. This was the approach taken by the RATE⁵ group, whose research uncovered multiple lines of evidence that millions of years’ worth of radioactive decay had taken place in just months during Noah’s Flood.⁶

But there is another way to challenge radiometric dating: to ask whether radiometric dates make sense when compared to other kinds of geological data. This is the approach we will take in this article. We will begin by considering sediment accumulation rates.

We can challenge the assumptions underlying dating techniques – and we can also ask whether radiometric dates make sense when compared to other kinds of geological data.

Sediment Accumulation Rates

There are several methods that can be used to estimate the rates at which sediments are being laid down today in a variety of environments, from rivers to lakes to oceans. One method involves spreading a layer of easily identifiable material (such as white clay or brick dust) over a natural sediment surface.⁷ Then at chosen intervals, say every six months, a core may be taken at the site and the depth to which the marker material has become buried can be measured.

Another common method is to use a sediment trap of some kind.⁸ Sediment traps are usually cylinders or cones closed at the bottom and open at the top. Sometimes they are suspended on a frame in mid-water but more often they are anchored to the bottom. After several days or months, the trap can be recovered, the sediment in the tube dried and weighed, and an estimate of the sediment flux can be made.

We know from studies of this kind that modern sedimentation rates vary quite a bit depending on the particular environment in which the sediments are being laid down. For example, sediments are typically deposited about ten times faster in a lake than in the ocean.⁹ But generally, modern sedimentation rates range from less than 0.1 cm/year to more than 2.0 cm/year, most often averaging around 1.0 cm/year.¹⁰

Let’s compare this to sedimentation rates in the geological past. Obviously ancient sedimentation rates cannot be directly measured, so we have to rely on indirect methods to estimate them. One common method is to apply radiometric dating. The thickness of sediment between two radiometrically-dated rock layers can be measured and, assuming that the radiometric dates are correct, the amount of time for the accumulation of the sediment and a sedimentation rate in centimetres per year can be calculated.

Figure 2. How radiometric dates are used to estimate ancient sedimentation rates. Consider the example in Figure 2, which shows a stack of sedimentary rocks 500 metres thick between two volcanic ash layers. The sedimentary rocks cannot be dated directly using radiometric methods, but the volcanic ash layers can.¹¹ The lowermost ash layer has a radiometric age of 545 million years and the uppermost ash layer an age of 495 million years.

The time it took to deposit these sediments can be calculated by subtracting the uppermost date from the lowermost date to give 50 million years. The sedimentation rate can also be calculated, in this case amounting to 500 metres of sediment in 50 million years or about 0.001 cm/year.

As with studies of sedimentation rates in modern environments, estimates based on radiometric dates vary quite a bit. But they typically range from less than 0.0001 cm/year to more than 0.01 cm/year, most often averaging around 0.001 cm/year.¹²

Something very striking should now be obvious. Average ancient sedimentation rates estimated using radiometric dates are much, much slower than those based on direct measurements in modern lakes, rivers and oceans. In fact, ancient rates estimated using radiometric dates are slower than modern rates by about three orders of magnitude – a 1,000-fold difference. That is a large discrepancy.

Another way of expressing this discrepancy is to say that if average sedimentation rates in the past were similar to those in the present (as most old-Earth geologists would assume) there ought to be many times more sedimentary rock than we actually find in the geological record. There is nothing like enough sedimentary rock if the layers accumulated over hundreds of millions of years!

A Conundrum for the Old-Earth Model

Old-Earth geologists are well aware of this discrepancy and have been for a long time. In fact, the geologist Joseph Barrell recognised the problem as early as 1917, while radiometric dating techniques were still in their infancy,¹³ and other geologists since have made similar observations.^14,15,16

One of the classic studies of this problem was by geologist Peter Sadler, currently at the University of California Riverside. In 1981, he compiled nearly 25,000 estimates of sedimentation rates over different time spans, ranging from measurements made in an hour during a modern flash flood to estimates of ancient sedimentation rates over millions of years based on radiometric dating.¹⁷

He plotted all these estimates of sedimentation rates against the time spans for which they were determined, and showed that sedimentation rates based on radiometric dates are orders of magnitude lower than sedimentation rates based on modern-day measurements. In fact, the discrepancy gets bigger the longer the time span being considered, a phenomenon that has become known as ‘the Sadler effect’.¹⁸

Is there a solution to this problem? Old-Earth geologists say that since there is no evidence that average sedimentation rates really were slower in the geological past compared to today,¹⁹ the answer has to be that much more sediment was originally deposited but that most of it was eroded away before it could be preserved in the rock record.

To put it another way, the discrepancy can be resolved from an old-Earth standpoint only if the Earth’s rock record is the product of brief episodes of sedimentation punctuated by very long periods of erosion or inactivity. Then, sedimentation rates based on radiometric dating would only appear to be unrealistically slow, because most of the sediment that was originally laid down is now missing from any local section of the rock record.

Old-Earth geologists try to resolve the problem of the missing rock layers by arguing for brief episodes of sedimentation punctuated by long periods of erosion or inactivity.

Indeed, this is the predominant view expressed in the standard geological literature. The late Professor Derek Ager, former President of the Geologists’ Association, summed it up in characteristically memorable style in his book, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record. The capitals and italics are his:

THE SEDIMENTARY PILE AT ANY ONE PLACE ON THE EARTH’S SURFACE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A TINY AND FRAGMENTARY RECORD OF VAST PERIODS OF EARTH HISTORY. This may be called the Phenomenon of the Gap Being More Important than the Record.²⁰

And he drove the point home in the same chapter with this statement:

If you study textbooks or correlation charts, such as those produced by the Geological Society of America and the Geological Society of London, you come inevitably to the conclusion that the stratigraphical column in any one place is a long record of sedimentation with occasional gaps…But I maintain that a far more accurate picture of the stratigraphical record is of one long gap with only very occasional sedimentation.²¹ (my emphasis)

Now if this view of Earth history is correct, then the preserved sedimentary rock record must be extremely incomplete. The Dutch geologist Tjeerd van Andel emphasised how incomplete:

…invariably we find that the rock record requires only a small fraction, usually 1 to 10 percent, of the available time, even if we take account of all possible breaks in the sequence…The universality and especially the magnitude of the shortfall are startling.²² (my emphasis)

More recently, British geologist Robin Bailey has written:

…at all scales, the rock layers themselves represent only a small proportion of the time involved in the accumulation of a major sedimentary series, such as the Coal Measures or the Lias Clay – maybe as little as 10%.²³

However, it should be noted that both the long time gaps and the missing sediment demanded by the old-Earth viewpoint are entirely hypothetical! Radiometric dating requires long time gaps and a great deal of missing sediment, but these things are not deduced from the physical evidence of the rock record itself.

In fact, to the contrary, the physical evidence provides powerful evidence against long time gaps. For if erosion had removed lots of sediment we ought to see physical evidence that significant amounts of erosion had taken place.

Radiometric dating requires long time gaps and a great deal of missing sediment, but these things are entirely hypothetical – and the physical evidence of the rock record actually testifies against them.

Time Gaps Should Leave Evidence

Figure 3 shows the kind of evidence we would expect to see if long time periods had passed between sedimentary episodes:

• Figure 3. If erosion had removed lots of sediment we would expect to see physical evidence of this in the rock record. After Roth, AA, 1988. Those gaps in the sedimentary layers. Origins 15(2):75-92.

  In (A), a continuous series of sedimentary layers is deposited.
  

• Then there is a long time gap during which erosion takes place, sediments are removed and an uneven topography develops (B).
  
• Then the deposition of sediments resumes and buries the old erosion surface (C).
  
• This is followed by a second cycle of erosion and deposition, producing a very complex stratigraphy with evidence of multiple, uneven, buried erosion surfaces (D).
  
• But contrast this with what is more normally seen in the rock record (E): flat-lying sedimentary layers without significant amounts of erosion evident between them. And this absence of significant erosion is typical, even when time gaps of millions of years are thought to separate two consecutive rock formations.

Figure 4 helps to emphasise how common these time gaps are in a well-studied area. It shows a vertical section through the sedimentary layers found across south-eastern Utah. The region represented here is 133km across, while the total thickness of the rock layers is 3.5km. The thickness of the rock layers has been magnified by about 14 times in order to show their features in this diagram.

Figure 4. The dramatic contrast between present-day topography and the flat-lying sedimentary layers in southeastern Utah, USA. The yellow bands represent sedimentary rock formations, while the green shaded areas represent presumed time gaps between the sedimentary rock formations. The main divisions of the geological column are given on the left, along with their conventional ages in millions of years. Labels on the right represent the names of the major rock formations. After Roth, AA, 2009. “Flat gaps” in sedimentary rock layers challenge long geologic ages. Journal of Creation 23(2):76-81.The presumed time gaps in this section of the rock record are shown by the green shading. In reality the rock formations (in yellow) rest on top of one another over large areas without evidence of significant erosion between them.

The red dashed and purple solid lines (indicated by black arrows) are examples of the present irregular eroded surface of the land in this region. Note the dramatic contrast between the irregular surface of the present landscape and the flat surfaces of the rock layers in the past (the yellow layers).

Example: The Moenkopi-Shinarump Time Gap

Let us consider one specific time gap. The contact between the Moenkopi Formation and the overlying Shinarump Conglomerate (the lowermost unit of the Chinle Formation) is exposed across much of the Colorado Plateau of the south-western USA. It has been described as an ancient erosion surface representing a considerable span of missing time. The whole of the Middle Triassic and part of the Upper Triassic is missing between these two rock formations. According to radiometric dating, the missing time amounts to at least 10 and perhaps as much as 35 million years.

But is it reasonable to think so much time passed between the deposition of these two rock formations? Geologists Art Chadwick and Leonard Brand have examined the contact between the two formations at most outcrops in southern and central Utah and northern Arizona.²⁴

If long time periods had passed between sedimentary episodes, we would expect to see evidence in the geological record.

They report that across much of this area the contact appears to be perfectly flat and without evidence of significant erosion. In fact, there are thin siltstone and mudstone layers just below the contact that they were able to trace for over 50km. How were such fragile layers able to survive more than 10 million years of erosion?

Moreover, in some places structures known as ‘load casts’ are observed at the contact. Load casts are bulges that form on the underside of a sedimentary layer when it is deposited on top of another soft, unconsolidated layer. These load casts indicate that the underlying Moenkopi sediments must have been water-saturated and unconsolidated at the time the overlying Shinarump was laid down.

These features are inconsistent with a long time gap between final deposition of the Moenkopi and the beginning of Shinarump deposition. It seems highly improbable that several million years of time passed between these two formations.

Paraconformities: A Geological Enigma

Similar flat contacts, thought to represent long time gaps, are found across the world and are quite common in various parts of the geological record.^25,26,27 Geologists refer to them as ‘paraconformities’. But why do these flat contacts not show evidence of the erosion we would expect if so much time had passed? Based on average modern erosion rates, it would take only 10-34 million years to erode the mountains down to sea level.²⁸ Yet these contacts, which often represent equivalent time gaps, are typically very flat, indicating that little erosion has taken place.

In a 1984 paper, palaeontologist Norman Newell acknowledged the enigmatic nature of paraconformities:

A puzzling characteristic of [major stratigraphic boundaries] is the general lack of physical evidence of subaerial exposure. Traces of deep leaching, scour, channeling, and residual gravels tend to be lacking, even when the underlying rocks are cherty limestones…These boundaries are paraconformities that are identifiable only by paleontological evidence.²⁹

Careful examination of these flat contacts causes us to question whether the long time spans necessitated by radiometric dating have a solid foundation.

So far-reaching are the implications of this missing time problem that the Geological Society of London devoted its annual William Smith Meeting in 2012 to discussing it. The papers from the meeting were subsequently published in a special volume entitled Strata and Time: Probing the Gaps in our Understanding, in 2015. In the introductory paper, the authors wrote:

The existence of [time] gaps is clearly demonstrated by consideration of [sediment] accumulation rates, but identifying and quantifying them in the field is far more difficult…³⁰

This is a very telling statement. Radiometric dating requires long time gaps interspersed with only occasional bursts of sedimentation, but trying to identify these time gaps in the geological record is far from straightforward. In fact, the authors refer to the time gaps as “often cryptic”,³¹ which means that they are hidden! I think we are justified in asking why it is so hard to find evidence of this missing time if the radiometric dates are correct.

Radiometric dating requires long time gaps interspersed with only occasional bursts of sedimentation, but trying to find evidence of these time gaps in the geological record is far from straightforward.

Bioturbation

But missing sediments and lack of erosion are not the only problems facing the old-Earth model. Another is the absence of animal traces. Even if a sedimentary layer was not being actively eroded during a long time gap, other factors would have come into play.

Imagine a freshly deposited layer of sediment, exposed on the sea floor for some period of time. Such a layer would quickly be colonised by bottom-dwelling animals that would burrow into the surface to build their homes or process the sediment for food. These activities would mix up the sediment and destroy any internal structures it originally possessed, such as layering.

We call this sediment mixing by animals ‘bioturbation’. And the oceans teem with burrowing animals, drawn from a wide variety of groups.³² Among them are clams, shrimps, sea urchins and many kinds of worms. Moreover, we know that many of these marine organisms can move very rapidly through the sediment, burrowing centimetres to tens of centimetres in a matter of seconds to minutes.³³

One remarkably rapid burrower is the West Indian beach clam. This species is found in very large numbers in the tidal zone of sandy beaches in the West Indies.³⁴ It can burrow into the sand at rates of almost half a centimetre per second, achieving complete burial in only a few seconds.³⁵ This (and closely related species) can burrow so quickly that they follow the surf-line up and down the beach with the rising and falling of the tide – a distance of up to 30 metres in some cases.^{36,37,38,39,40}

In fact, it doesn’t take long for burrowing animals to completely churn up (‘homogenise’) sedimentary layers to a depth of several centimetres, so that all the internal layering is completely destroyed. Experiments with deposit feeders (animals that process the sediment for food), in population densities of 10,000/m², have shown that they can completely homogenise a sedimentary layer to a depth of 10cm in as little as one hour!⁴¹ Some readers may wonder whether a population density of 10,000 individuals/m² is realistic in the natural world, but some burrowing crustaceans exceed 40,000 individuals/m² and some burrowing worms may reach 60,000/m².^42,43,44

Actually, homogenisation of sediments is rapid even when population numbers are much lower than this. Here are a few examples from the published literature:

• Lugworms in densities of 200 individuals/m² completely reworked the sediment they lived in to a depth of 10cm in 100 days.⁴⁵
  
• Heart urchins in densities exceeding 40 individuals/m² completely reworked the sediment they lived in to a depth of 5cm in 3 days, and in more than 20 days with lower densities.⁴⁶
  
• Ghost shrimp in densities of 89-890 individuals/m² were estimated to rework the sediment they lived in by about 67% to a depth of 12cm in as little as 15½ hours.⁴⁷

Missing sediments and lack of erosion are not the only problems facing the old-Earth model - another is the absence of animal traces in the rock record.

Given how fast these marine animals are known to completely churn up sediments in the modern ocean, old-Earth geologists would expect complete homogenisation of layers to be the norm in the ancient rock record, just as it is in the modern oceans. Richard Bromley, an expert on the burrowing activities of animals, makes this point in one of his textbooks on trace fossils:

100 per cent bioturbation of the substrate is the natural end product of the activity of the endobenthos [animals that live within the sea floor sediment]. Failure to reach 100 per cent, or the failure of that state to be preserved in the rock record, are conditions that require explanation.⁴⁸

From an old-Earth perspective, the complete destruction of all sedimentary layering should be the rule. What do we actually observe in the rock record?

Example: Colorado Plateau Survey

Over the last decade or so, geologists Leonard Brand and Art Chadwick have been conducting a survey of bioturbation in the rock formations of Utah and western Colorado,⁴⁹ an area of the USA where much of the geological record is well exposed and not covered by vegetation.

They and their colleagues have carefully worked their way through many vertical sections of rock – measuring thousands of metres in thickness – representing most parts of the rock record from the Cambrian System (conventionally dated 541-485 million years ago) to the Eocene Series (conventionally dated 56-34 million years ago).

Each section was examined centimetre-by-centimetre and layer-by-layer for evidence of animal burrows. And the amount of burrowing in each layer was quantified using a scale from ‘1’ to ‘4’, where ‘1’ means there was no bioturbation or not enough to noticeably disturb the layering, and ‘4’ means that the sediment was completely homogenised and all the layering destroyed.

Their survey revealed that the vast majority of the formations studied had little to no bioturbation, with the sedimentary layering generally well preserved. For example, in a 500m-thick section of the Triassic Moenkopi Formation in southwestern Utah there were a couple of beds with burrows, but none in which the layering was significantly disturbed. Every bed was therefore ranked level ‘1’ on the measurement scale.⁵⁰

The amount of bioturbation in this section was about average for all the sections surveyed. Even in the section with the greatest amount of bioturbation, a 60m-thick section through the Cretaceous Mancos Shale in central Utah, almost all beds lacked burrows and were ranked ‘1’ on the measurement scale. A few beds showed significant burrowing (and were ranked ‘3’) and only a couple were completely homogenised (and ranked ‘4’).⁵¹

These observations present another conundrum for the old-Earth model. We know that the oceans teem with animals that burrow into the sea floor to build their homes or to feed, and we know that this is an extremely effective way to destroy the layering in sea floor sediments. In fact, it is almost impossible to imagine a layer of exposed sediment surviving intact for even a few years – let alone longer time spans.⁵² Yet most sedimentary rock layers show few signs of disruption by burrowing animals, even when the fossil remains of burrowing animals are present in those very same rock layers.

Most sedimentary rock layers show few signs of disruption by burrowing animals, even when the fossil remains of burrowing animals are present in those very same rock layers.

The absence of bioturbation is one important reason why the rock record contains so many sedimentary rocks with distinct layering. If these layers had been laid down as episodically as radiometric dates suggest, we would expect the normal activity of burrowing animals between each sedimentary event to have thoroughly mixed up most of the layers, erasing any original internal structures.

Indeed, as Brand and Chadwick have noted,⁵³ sedimentologists, who rely on being able to study the internal structures in sedimentary rocks to decipher how they were laid down, would have a very hard time doing their work if these rocks had been deposited as slowly as radiometric dating suggests!

Conclusion

In this short series we have considered some important aspects of the theological and scientific case for a young world. In my first two articles, I argued that the young-Earth position makes the most sense of the biblical and theological data, and is the only position that allows us to maintain a traditional understanding of the goodness of the original Creation and the atonement of Christ as payment for sin’s penalty.

However, the young-Earth position faces a plausibility problem when considering the scientific data. Is it really possible to account for the geological evidence in a young-Earth time-frame? In this final article, I have answered that question affirmatively.

Radiometric dating suggests that the Earth’s sedimentary rock record accumulated over hundreds of millions of years. But it follows that the rock record must be the product of only occasional bursts of sedimentation interspersed with long periods of erosion or inactivity. However, in many places there is no physical evidence of the erosion we would expect between consecutive rock layers, even when they are thought to have been separated by millions of years. Moreover, the expected levels of bioturbation are not observed and sedimentary layering is generally well preserved.

The old-Earth model fails to explain these data. By contrast, the young-Earth model is able to explain these data quite well. In the young-Earth model most of the fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks are considered to have accumulated in the year-long catastrophe of Noah’s Flood (and its aftermath), not over hundreds of millions of years. Sedimentation rates during the Flood and in the centuries afterward would have been very high and are able to explain the observed thickness of sedimentary rocks, with no need to invoke time gaps except where there is definite evidence.

It is not scientifically unreasonable to look for explanations within a young-Earth framework and call into question the reliability of taken-for-granted dating techniques.

During the Flood, deposition was mostly too rapid for burrowing animals to homogenise the sediments, unlike in the present day when homogenisation of sediments is the norm. Burrows are found throughout the sedimentary record, but the amount of activity is most consistent with short periods of time.

In conclusion, the young-Earth model not only accounts for the biblical and theological data that we discussed in the first two articles; it also offers a plausible explanation for the major features of the Earth’s sedimentary rock record. Of course, there are many other geological features that any model of Earth history must explain, but the evidence presented here shows that it is not scientifically unreasonable to look for explanations within a young-Earth framework and to call into question the reliability of taken-for-granted dating techniques like radiometric dating.

References

1 Brand, L and Chadwick, A, 2016. Faith, Reason, and Earth History: A Paradigm of Earth and Biological Origins by Intelligent Design. Third edition. Andrews University Press, Berrien Springs, Michigan, p1039. Page numbers refer to the ebook edition.

2 DeYoung, D, 2005. Thousands…Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth. Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, p126.

3 Precision is the degree to which repeated measurements give similar results. Accuracy is the closeness of a measurement to the true value. Measurements can be very precise but inaccurate!

4 Snelling, AA, 2010. Radiometric dating: making sense of the patterns. Answers 5(1):72-75.

5 The acronym stands for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth.

6 For more information about this research consult Don DeYoung’s book, ‘Thousands…Not Billions’, ref 2, or the two technical RATE volumes by Vardiman, L, Snelling, AA and Chaffin, EF (eds), 2000. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California and Creation Research Society, St Joseph, Missouri. 2005. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, Arizona.

7 Thomas, S and Ridd, PV, 2004. Review of methods to measure short time scale sediment accumulation. Marine Geology 207:95-114.

8 Thomas and Ridd, ref 7.

9 Boggs, S, Jr, 1995. Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy. Second edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, p332.

10 Sommerfield, CK and Nitrouer, CA, 1999. Modern accumulation rates and a sediment budget for the Eel Shelf: a flood-dominated depositional environment. Marine Geology 154:227-241.

11 This is known as ‘age bracketing’. See Doyle, P, Bennett, MR and Baxter, AN, 1994. The Key to Earth History: An Introduction to Stratigraphy. Wiley, Chichester, pp59-60.

12 Brand and Chadwick, ref 1, p1039.

13 Barrell, J, 1917. Rhythms and the measurement of geologic time. Geological Society of America Bulletin 28:745-904.

14 Reineck, HE, 1960. Über zeitlücken in rezenten flachsee-sedimenten. Geologische Rundschau 49:149-161.

15 Miller, TG, 1965. Time in stratigraphy. Palaeontology 8:113-131.

16 Newell, ND, 1972. Stratigraphic gaps and chronostratigraphy. Proceedings of the 24^th International Geological Congress 7:198-204.

17 Sadler, PM, 1981. Sediment accumulation rates and the completeness of stratigraphic sections. Journal of Geology 89:569-584.

18 Schumer, R, Jerolmack, DJ and McElroy, B, 2011. The stratigraphic filter and bias in measurement of geologic rates. Geophysical Research Letters 38(11):L11405.

19 Sadler wrote (1981, p572): “The consistent observation of falling median accumulation rates with increasing time span may be explained in terms of measurement error, post-depositional compaction, long-term evolution of geomorphic systems, or episodic sedimentation.” But he went on to explain that neither errors in age determinations nor thickness reduction by compaction were sufficient to explain the observed trends. He also rejected as unwarranted the idea that sediment accumulation rates had undergone a long-term acceleration as a result of increasing tectonism. Sadler concluded that only episodic sedimentation could account for the data.

20 Ager, DV, 1981. The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record. Second edition. Macmillan, p35.

21 Ager, ref 20, pp34-35.

22 van Andel, TH, 1981. Consider the incompleteness of the geological record. Nature 294:397-398. Quotation on p397.

23 Bailey, R, 2018. Stratigraphy – it’s all about layers, isn’t it? Deposits (53):45-51. Quotation on p51.

24 Chadwick, AV and Brand, LR, 2013. Does the Moenkopi/Chinle contact represent a 10my depositional hiatus on the Colorado Plateau? Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 45(7):241.

25 Roth, AA, 1988. Those gaps in the sedimentary layers. Origins 15(2):75-92.

26 Roth, AA, 2003. Implications of paraconformities. Geoscience Reports 36:1-5.

27 Roth, AA, 2009. “Flat gaps” in sedimentary rock layers challenge long geologic ages. Journal of Creation 23(2):76-81.

28 Roth, AA, 1986. Some questions about geochronology. Origins 13(2):64-85. Published denudation rates for North America suggest that the continents, which average 623m above sea level, could be eroded to sea level in a mere 10.2 million years. Even after correcting these rates for human activity, only 34 million years are required for complete denudation of the continents.

29 Newell, ND, 1984. Mass extinction: unique or recurrent causes? In: Berggren, WA and van Couvering, JA (eds), Catastrophes and Earth History: The New Uniformitarianism. Princeton University Press, pp115-127.

30 Smith, DG et al, 2015. Strata and time: probing the gaps in our understanding. In: Smith, DG et al (eds), Strata and Time: Probing the Gaps in our Understanding. Geological Society of London Special Publication 404, pp1-10. Quotation on p1.

31 Smith et al, ref 30, p1.

32 Endobenthic animals (i.e. those that live within the sediment on the sea floor) are found in virtually every phylum. See Bromley, RG, 1990. Trace Fossils: Biology and Taphonomy. Unwin Hyman, London, p1.

33 Woodmorappe, J, 2006. Are soft-sediment trace fossils (ichnofossils) a time problem for the Flood? Journal of Creation 20(2):113-122.

34 Wade, BA, 1967. Studies on the biology of the West Indian beach clam, Donax denticulatus Linné. 1. Ecology. Bulletin of Marine Science 17:149-174.

35 Trueman, ER, 1971. The control of burrowing and the migratory behavior of Donax denticulatus (Bivalvia: Tellinacea). Journal of the Zoological Society of London 165:453-469.

36 Wade, ref 34.

37 Johnson, PT, 1966. On Donax and other sandy beach inhabitants. Veliger 9:29-30.

38 Turner, HJ and Belding, AL, 1957. The tidal migrations of Donax variabilis Say. Limnology and Oceanography 2:120-124.

39 Pichon, M, 1967. Contribution à l'étude des peuplements de la zone intertidale sur sables fins et sables vaseux non fixés dans la région de Tuléar. Recueil des Travaux de la Station Marine d’Endoume (Fascicule Hors Série Supplément) 7:57-100.

40 Ansell, AD and Trevallion, A, 1969. Behavioural adaptations of intertidal molluscs from a tropical sandy beach. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 4:9-35.

41 Gingras, MK, Pemberton, SG, Dashtgard, S and Dafoe, L, 2008. How fast do marine invertebrates burrow? Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 270:280-286.

42 Gingras et al, ref 41.

43 Wilson, WH, Jr, 1981. Sediment-mediated interactions in a densely populated infaunal assemblage: the effects of polychaete Abarenicola pacifica. Journal of Marine Research 39:735-748.

44 Brenchley, GA, 1981. Disturbance and community structure: an experimental study of bioturbation in marine soft-bottom environments. Journal of Marine Research 39:767-790.

45 Swinbanks, DD, 1981. Sediment reworking and the biogenic formation of clay laminae by Abarenicola pacifica. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 51:1137-1145.

46 Lohrer, AM, Thrush, SF, Hunt, L, Hancock, N and Lundquist, C, 2005. Rapid reworking of subtidal sediments by burrowing spatangoid urchins. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 321:155-169.

47 Grimm, KA and Fölmi, KB, 1994. Doomed pioneers: allochthonous crustacean tracemakers in anaerobic basinal strata, Oligo-Miocene San Gregorio Formation, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Palaios 9:313-334.

48 Bromley, ref 32, p200.

49 Brand and Chadwick, ref 1, pp1100-1103.

50 Brand and Chadwick, ref 1, p1102.

51 Brand and Chadwick, ref 1, p1102.

52 For example, Hurricane Carla laid down distinctive layers of sediment off the coast of Texas in 1961. About twenty years later, geologists returned to these layers to find out what had happened to them. Most of the layers had been destroyed by marine organisms, and where the layers could still be found they were almost unrecognisable. See Dott, RH, Jr, 1983. 1982 SEPM Presidential Address: Episodic sedimentation – how normal is average? How rare is rare? Does it matter? Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 53:5-23.

53 Brand and Chadwick, ref 1, p1097.

Further response to article comments

Neil Laing and Andrew Bloxham have raised quite a number of issues and it’s not really possible to do justice to them in a short reply. But I hope the following will be helpful in addressing some of their comments and questions.

Neil begins by stating that the young-age creationist (YAC) position originated in the 1960s with Seventh-day Adventism. This is a common claim but I think it’s misguided. The major tenets of YAC (a recent creation, a historical Adam from whom all humans are descended, no agony before Adam, a cosmic fall, a global flood and so on) are ideas that can be traced back much further than Seventh-day Adventism – indeed, I would say to the biblical authors themselves. These ideas can be found in the writings of the Church Fathers, the Reformers, the Scriptural Geologists of the 19^th century and many other Christians down through the centuries, so it’s incorrect to suggest that they are somehow recent theological innovations.

Neil goes on to say that if one takes a literal interpretation of Genesis one is compelled to “reject virtually all modern scientific theories related to creation”. However, I’m not a YAC because I’ve adopted a naively wooden literalism when it comes to Genesis or the days of creation – rather I’m a YAC because I can’t see how one can otherwise explain the physical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ unless physical death and agony came into the world because of Adam’s sin. As I sought to explain in my first two articles, this is the central theological problem that must be faced by proponents of the old-age position. Furthermore, as a YAC I don’t usually feel the need to entirely reject modern scientific theories – though that may happen in some instances. More often, I want to modify them in interesting ways to see what happens. Consider plate tectonics, the theory that says the Earth’s crust is broken into a series of interlocking plates that move relative to one another. This theory successfully and impressively explains many features of the Earth’s geology. However, the slow movement of the tectonic plates in the present day doesn’t fit with the Bible’s short timescale of Earth history, and this has led YACs to propose a new version of plate tectonics in which the plates separated very rapidly during Noah’s Flood. The new model (called Catastrophic Plate Tectonics) turns out to be even better at explaining the Earth’s geology than the old slow-and-gradual model of plate tectonics. The point is that we didn’t have to “throw out” plate tectonics altogether – we were able to explain more simply by modifying aspects of it.

I was interested to see Bob White’s response to my third article, although I’m not sure he has really engaged with the case I was making. I wasn’t arguing that the age of the Earth can be deduced from sediment accumulation rates – but rather that what we know about sediment accumulation rates, paraconformities and bioturbation in the rock record poses a serious challenge to the standard radiometric timescale, so often taken for granted. Bob’s comment that the sedimentary record “is mainly (with some exceptions) the record of short-lived catastrophic events – such as river floods” is partly correct. Many of the catastrophic events that have left their mark in the rock record are far beyond the scale of local river floods – many were almost unimaginably catastrophic and without any parallel in the modern world.

Neil asks a number of questions about the age of the universe. I didn’t address that topic in my articles for a couple of reasons. First, the question of the age of the universe has far fewer theological implications than, say, the age of fossils (and by implication, the time at which death enters creation) – and so I focused on what is most important theologically. Second, I’m not trained in astronomy or cosmology, so I would have been dealing with matters outside my area of scientific expertise. However, many resources are available that explore issues such as the age of the universe and the travel-time of light from a YAC point of view. I would recommend, for example, ‘The Expanse of Heaven’ (Master Books, 2017, 400pp) and its companion volume ‘The Created Cosmos’ (Master Books, 2016, 350pp), both by astronomer Danny Faulkner.

Andrew Bloxham also raises some interesting questions, though I don’t think they materially affect the case that I was making. He mentions one “glaring omission”, suggesting that Satan was already present in the guise of the deceiving serpent even as God declared the creation “very good”. I think that is to read more into the biblical text than is there. My belief is that at the end of Creation Week Satan was as yet unfallen – that his rebellion against God and expulsion from heaven occurred after God’s declaration that all he had made was very good and before the serpent’s appearance before Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Andrew also asks about the origin of coal, oil and dinosaur skeletons. From a YAC perspective, much (though not all) of the fossil record was formed during the global Flood in the days of Noah. So the dinosaurs and other animals found in those Flood sediments represent creatures that were living before the Flood, and that were then transported, buried and preserved at the time of the Flood. Likewise, the coal and oil now buried within those Flood sediments represents the remains of plants and marine microorganisms buried during the Flood. We know that long periods of time are not required to transform this material into coal and oil, because such processes have been simulated under laboratory conditions within timescales of days to a few years.

I’d like to conclude with a few comments on the puzzlement expressed by Neil Laing about why any Christian would refuse to accept the YAC position if it had sufficient scientific evidence. I think that question can be turned around: Why do so many well-qualified and knowledgeable Christian scientists accept YAC if the scientific evidence is so clearly against it? I actually agree with Neil (in the final statement he makes) that science cannot ultimately settle anything – all we have are provisional theories. Our faith must finally rest in God and his Word, not in scientific arguments. My concluding article was not an attempt to “prove” the YAC position, nor to answer every possible objection to it (if that were even possible). Instead, it had the more limited goal of showing that the YAC position is not unreasonable and ought not to be dismissed out of hand as “obviously” wrong-headed. Of course, reality is complex. Some bits of data seem to favour creation and a young Earth; others seem to favour evolution and an old Earth. Some data can be explained equally well by either model; other data is not explained well by either model. This is why God has spoken in his Word and why we are called to exercise faith (Heb 11:3). I would only add that my testimony as a natural scientist is that the Bible’s account of a recent creation has given me a satisfying framework within which to do science, and has helped me to make sense of the world’s many wonders and mysteries. It’s exciting to be a young-age creationist! “Great are the works of the LORD, studied by all who delight in them” (Ps 111:2, ESV).

A new series on the ‘elementary principles’ of Hebrews 6:1-2.

We begin a series about the basic requirements of the Christian life, as set out by the writer to the Hebrews. It is a timely reminder of the necessity for a proper grounding in the principles of life in Christ.

True Salvation

One of the reasons why there are unnecessary problems in the life of some Christians is because certain foundational truths have not been established. If the foundation of a building is weak those weaknesses affect the superstructure. Cracks will appear and things will come out of alignment, all detracting from the strength of the building. So it is in a Christian’s life.

Some years ago after living and ministering in New Zealand, we returned to England. My son, who was then 12 years of age, soon discovered there was a difference in the standard of education between New Zealand and England. For example, he had done no language study, apart from English, and found himself in a class where the students had already had about two years teaching of French and Latin.

Three years later we attended a parent-teacher evening and in conversation with the French master, he said, “I cannot understand your son, Stuart. He is clever and does well in his exams, but from time to time he makes the most elementary mistakes.” We reminded him that he had missed the initial teaching of the basics of the language. Although he had learned much, because the foundational teaching of the language had not been properly laid, the defects were manifested.

Before foundational truths can be established it is important to ensure that a person is a true Christian. Many people call themselves Christians, but are not. Therefore, it may be a good investment of a few minutes to check up on the reality of our profession of faith. Although this may seem a strange introduction to this series, I believe there is a precedent for it. At the end of Paul’s second letter to the church in Corinth, in which he had encouraged. taught, and corrected, he asks them to do something: “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; text yourselves. Do you not realise that Christ Jesus is in you - unless, of course, you fail the test” (2 Cor 13:5).

One of the reasons why there are unnecessary problems in the life of some Christians is because certain foundational truths have not been established.

He gives a clear definition of what a Christian is; someone with Christ in them. So the first question to ask ourselves is, ‘am I in the faith? Is Christ in me?’ He did not ask others to examine us, but made it personal. Here is a check-list of biblical references to help in this self-examination.

A person who has a right relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ knows it without any shadow of doubt. This assurance is given by the Holy Spirit. “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children” (Rom 8:16) and as John puts it, “Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart” (1 John 5:10).

John Wesley, the great preacher, used to say to his congregations, ‘make sure you have the witness'. You are not a Christian because someone says that you are, but because you have that inner knowledge given by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes people have come to me and said, ‘can you help me, I have never been sure whether I am a Christian or not.’ My response has been, ‘yes, I do want to help you, you are not.’ A true Christian knows.

Another proof is that there has been a change in your life. Something has happened. Paul puts it this way, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (2 Cor 5:17). A true Christian has a desire to obey God. John puts it bluntly but clearly, “We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, ‘I know him’, but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:3, 4). The Lord Jesus made this challenging statement, “Not everyone who says, ‘Lord, Lord’, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt 7:21).

Another evidence of the reality of Christian experience is that we love other Christians. Before one becomes a Christian there is little or no desire to be with people who want to worship God, read the Bible, pray and talk about Jesus. They are not, ‘one of us’, and we are not ‘one of them’. However, when the miracle of salvation takes place there is a change of attitude which leads to a change of company! Again John says, “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death” (1 John 3:14).

The Apostle Paul gives a clear definition of what a Christian is: someone with Christ in them.

So, what is the result of the examination? Do you have the assurance of the Holy Spirit? Has there been a change in your life? Do you live to do the will of God? Do you love other Christians? Every true Christian will be able to say with Paul, “I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day” (2 Tim 1:12).

If, however, you failed the test and sincerely desire to know God as your Father and Jesus Christ as your Lord, obey the word of God. Acknowledge your need. Agree with the Bible when it says, “We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa 53:6) and, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23).

Remember the cry of the tax collector in Luke 18:13, “God have mercy on me, a sinner”. If we have one good word to say for ourselves we are not candidates for God's salvation, because he is only the Saviour of sinners. Look to the Lord Jesus. He is the only Saviour. He is the only way to God. He said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

The first step to salvation is to believe in the Lord Jesus. Believe what is true, that Jesus is the Son of God, who loves you, died for you and took the punishment for your sins at the Cross. Jesus who, “died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3). Receive him as your Saviour.

Having acknowledged your sin and repented, believing he died for you and rose again, ask Jesus to come in to your life, yielding it totally to his Lordship, knowing, “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become the children of God. Children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God” (John 1:12). Now confess him as Lord, “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom 10:9).

Now look at the record, “And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:11,12). We move on now to the foundational truths.

The first step to salvation is to believe in the Lord Jesus. Then, having acknowledged your sin and repented, believing he died for you and rose again, ask Jesus to come in to your life, yielding it totally to his Lordship.

Foundational Truths

The Lord Jesus told a story about two house builders. One built his house on a rock and when the storms and floods came his house stood firm. The other built his house on sand and his house was completely demolished when the deluge came.

As the storms and winds of adversity face the church of God it is imperative that Christian lives are solidly laid on the foundation of Jesus Christ, and on the truth of God's word. It is a sad fact of life that many Christians remain in the kindergarten of faith and never move on to maturity.

The writer to the Hebrews emphasises this point. He was writing to Christians who had just come through severe times of persecution and were on the threshold of even greater opposition. After declaring the glorious wonders of the Lord Jesus Christ, greater than angels, greater than Moses, “the apostle and High Priest of our confession. Christ Jesus, who was faithful to him who appointed him”, he pauses to express a certain fear. That fear was that some who had been truly born again would fail to go on to maturity.

One of the reasons for their immaturity was a failure to have certain truths established in their lives. He wants them to get beyond the ‘milk bottle’ stage. He complains that instead of their being able to teach others they themselves still need to be taught the elementary truths. In chapter 6 of Hebrews these truths are described in the New King James Version as repentance from dead works; faith toward God; the doctrine of baptisms; of laying on of hands; of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

The purpose of this short series is to teach these basic truths to ensure that they have been established in your life so that you can go on to maturity.

First published as a mini-book in 1992 by PWM Ministries, entitled ‘The Biblical Basis of First Principles’. Edited for online publication May 2018.

The soundtracks of Christendom…and post-Christendom.

This article is part of a series. Click here to read previous instalments.

Last week we saw that humans are designed to be musical creatures and that music is a powerful gift that can be used for good or ill. We saw that it is both an expression and a shaper of human culture – such that what is popular, musically speaking, will always reflect a society’s spiritual condition.

With this in mind, let’s step back in time and consider, in broad terms, how Western music has developed up to the present day.

The Sounds of Christendom

It is difficult to overstate the influence that Christianity has had on the development of Western music – and always in a way that has reflected the state of the Church. In medieval and Renaissance times, when the Bible was still in Latin and religion was largely the domain of priests and monks, a clear division existed between the [Catholic] Church and the people. Accordingly, music was also divided quite neatly into sacred (i.e. church) and secular (i.e. folk, entertainment) traditions, the latter of which varied in its reverence for God and often referenced pre-Christian, pagan themes.

With the Reformation, all of this changed: faith suddenly became available to the masses – a matter for communal discussion, meeting, sharing and singing. Europe’s culture was fundamentally reshaped by Protestantism – and committed Lutherans like JS Bach and George Frideric Handel carried this into their music, devoting their lives to composing expressly for God’s glory.

It is difficult to overstate the influence that Christianity has wielded on the development of Western music.

This meant that through the 17^th and 18^th Centuries, Europe’s musical landscape (just as with its art and architecture) benefited from a broad cultural backdrop of biblical belief. As such, both Baroque and Classical music¹ developed an appreciation for order and the beauty of form.

Music of those centuries reflected Enlightenment ideals, yes, but also the assumption that the universe was divinely ordered and designed to be both functional and beautiful, to the glory of God. Right up until the 20^th Century, the devil remained a macabre figure, referenced in jest or as a nemesis.

20^th Century: Post-Christendom

But as Europe abandoned its Judeo-Christian moorings particularly after World War II, so trends in art, philosophy, architecture and music all tended to reject the former beauty of classical order, in favour of the ‘postmodern’ and ‘avant-garde’.

In music, orderly and even phrases were rejected in favour of abstract forms. Harmonious chords were replaced with dissonance. Just like society, music became disillusioned and cynical.² Instead of music proudly composed to the glory of God, postmodern composers like Alexander Skriabin declared themselves god and dabbled freely in the occult.³

Meanwhile, as ‘popular’ music and culture departed from broadly ‘classical’ music into jazz, rock and pop, and from there exploded into innumerable sub-genres, so these too have become expressions of their background culture: a society embracing anything but Christianity.

Whatever the genre, as people have forsaken a biblical worldview, and as the mass media has exported music to millions in a very short space of time, so the enemy has moved in to fill the spiritual vacuum and wield music’s power to influence the lives of people all over the world.

1960s-1980s: The Popularisation of satanic Music

There has been much debate about how first blues and jazz, and then rock and roll, formed part of a wider rebellion against Christianity and its moral moorings. However, I will jump on here to the deliberate infusion of occult themes into popular music from the 1960s onwards, in tandem with post-war ‘liberation’ movements (political, sexual, drug-related, etc).

Through the 1960s, thanks to celebrity interest in occultists such as Anton LaVey and Aleister Crowley, the idea of paying homage to satan through popular music really took off.

Through the 1970s and 80s, in a drug-fuelled haze and helped along by the new age influence of Brian Eno (a self-confessed ‘evangelical atheist’ with a hatred for Israel but a big influence in the music industry), occult imagery and new age/satanic references in pop and rock music became quite fashionable.

As Europe abandoned its Judeo-Christian moorings particularly after World War II, so trends in art, philosophy, architecture and music all tended to reject the former beauty of classical order.

Whether or not artists really believed in what they were referencing (I think both God and satan have taken it very seriously, even if they didn’t!), there is plentiful evidence to suggest satanic influence on many high-profile bands and artists, ranging from 60s rock-and-rollers like Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard to iconic groups like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin; from rock bands like The Eagles, U2 and AC/DC (of Highway to Hell fame) to megastars like Jimi Hendrix and David Bowie.

Led Zeppelin logo, making use of occult imagery. See Photo Credits.Alongside this rose heavy metal and ‘death metal’ music, with bands such as Iron Maiden, Judas Priest and Black Sabbath, and later Metallica and Megadeth, all professing occult allegiances. By the late 1980s, this part of the music world had grown so dark that it involved on-stage rituals and the glorification of satanic violence, including rape and murder.

As part of this, there are many stories of musicians genuinely selling their souls to the devil to ensure success, ‘channelling’ demons whilst onstage and ‘receiving’ songs whilst on drugs. Just a few examples:

• "Someone else is steering me. I'm just along for the ride. I become possessed when I'm on stage." (Angus Young, AC/DC)⁴
  
• “I was directed and commanded by another power, the power of darkness, the power of the devil, satan.” (Little Richard)⁵
  
• “I can explain everything better through music. You hypnotise people and when you get people at their weakest point you can preach into their subconscious what we want to say.” (Jimi Hendrix)
  
• “I wanted to marry Lucifer. I don’t consider Lucifer an evil force. I feel his presence in the music. I feel he comes and sits on my piano.” (Tori Amos)
  
• “I’ve sold my soul to the devil. But my joy is when you’re like possessed, like a medium…I’ll be sitting around and it’ll come in the middle of the night or at a time when you don’t want to do it – that’s the exciting part. I don’t know who the *** wrote it, I’m just sitting here and the whole *** song comes out. So you’re like driven and you find yourself over on a piano or a guitar and you put it down because it’s been given to you...” (John Lennon)
  

How far we have fallen since Handel’s Messiah!

There is plentiful evidence to suggest satanic influence on many high-profile bands and artists.

Millennial Pop

Through the 1990s and 2000s, heavy occult rock grew less fashionable as an expression of youthful rebellion against the status quo (though it has never lost its cult following). It was replaced by narcissistic pop, hip-hop and R&B club tunes, pushing messages about personal indulgence, sexual consumerism and, latterly, aggressive feminism – again, reflecting the spirit of the age.

However, through the superficial glitz of 21^st Century me-centred, licentious pop, occult overtones have not been absent. Mega-stars like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Nikki Minaj and Iggy Azalea are just a few household names, followed avidly by millions of teenage girls, who have carried occult or pagan themes into their music and videos. And who can forget Beyonce’s pregnant performance at last year’s Grammy Awards, when she ‘channelled’ a variety of African and Indian fertility goddesses onstage.⁶

Alongside this, electronic dance music (EDM) genres such as house, drum-and-bass and trance have continued the satanic themes of earlier heavy metal, including intense volume (said to induce depression, rebellion and aggression), repetitive rhythms designed to empty the mind, and builds and releases intended to mimic sexual activity.⁷ These kinds of music have carried late-20^th Century rave and drug culture into the millennium and beyond.

Whether we are considering the satanic rock music played at the Bataclan Concert Hall in Paris in 2015 (and, according to Pastor JD Farag,⁸ a recurring influence in the lives of American teen shooters), or the disgracefully immoral lyrics of pop stars like Ariana Grande (who performed at Manchester Arena before the attack last May), we begin to see just how extensive the satanic foothold on the music industry is – and how intently focused it is on shaping the minds of children and teenagers.

Whilst not all music written and performed by non-Christians is necessarily evil, it is certain that the enemy has been given plenty of room within the industry at large. This is simply a result and reflection of the spiritual state of wider society.

There are many stories of musicians genuinely selling their souls to the devil to ensure success, ‘channelling’ demons whilst onstage and ‘receiving’ songs whilst on drugs.

Discernment Needed

This has been a very sweeping analysis and I am aware that there are plenty of anomalies that don’t fit with the broader trends outlined here. That’s why there is great need for discernment in these days, for ourselves and for our loved ones.

The average Briton listens to 3,500 songs per year and spends more than 1/10 of their waking hours listening to music, according to a recent study.⁹ For 18-24 year olds this rises to a whopping 3½ hours of music per day. Christians need to wake up to the music we are allowing to become the backdrop of our lives.

We know that how we use our bodies is important (1 Cor 6:19-20). With our bodies we can glorify God, or we can rebel and be defiled. Just as it matters what we let pass in front of our eyes (Ps 101:3) and what we let come out of our mouths (Matt 15:11), so it matters what we allow to go into our ears (and the ears of our children and grandchildren), how we dance and, if we are musical, what we play. God calls us to focus on “whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable…excellent or praiseworthy” (Phil 4:8).

With this in mind, next week we will consider how the spirit of the age has infiltrated modern worship music.

References

1 Generally accepted dates for the Baroque period in music are 1600-1750, and for the Classical period 1750-c.1810.

2 E.g. see here.

3 See here.

4 Hit Parade, July 1985. Quoted here.

5 Taken from JD Farag’s update of 18 February, Youtube. All subsequent quotes likewise.

6 For a detailed analysis of the symbolism employed in Beyonce's performance, click here.

7 I am indebted to this article for the details about rock music's components.

8 See note 5.

9 See here.

Lessons from the life of Moses.

In the eighth part of our series, Fred Wright considers the lessons we can learn from the life of Moses.

Although in Christianity Moses is generally considered as a non-writing prophet, in some Judaic circles he is credited, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, with the reception and transmission of the Torah. This includes the pre-historical sections, which he received by divine revelation. Both the external and internal evidence of the texts illustrate that Moses was accredited with these writings from the earliest of times.

Moses is considered to be the greatest of the prophets and a model for those who came later. He also pre-figured the Messiah. In Second Temple Judaism, the messianic hope was in one who would be the true prophet that Moses had spoken of (see Deut 18:18, cf. Acts 10:43). Paul often referred to the whole of the Torah as 'Moses’ (2 Cor 3:15).

The Call of Moses

Moses presents a clear picture of the prophet as an intercessor. He illustrates an intimacy with the Lord which is second only to that of Jesus.

Moses was a Levite who could trace his lineage back to Levi through Amram (Ex 6:16f). After fleeing the Egyptian court (Ex 2:15f), he dwelt in the land of the Kenites, marrying into the family of the priest Reuel/Jethro. The Kenites were a people who could also trace their descent back to Abraham (Gen 25:1-6). One can therefore assume that their religion was a continuation of pre-Egyptian Yahwism.

Moses is considered to be the greatest of the prophets and a model for those who came later.

It was during this period, while tending his father-in-law's flocks in the vast wilderness of Midian, that Moses began to develop an intimacy with God. God appeared to him in a burning bush (Ex 3:6) and revealed that he was the God of the Patriarchs and not simply the God of the Kenites.

Furthermore, he had not forgotten his people despite their slavery and wanted Moses to be the instrument of their deliverance. Moses’ initial reaction to this was one of awe quickly followed by procrastination — no doubt due to the enormity of the task that had been placed before him.

Although the Lord gave him miraculous signs to perform, Moses was concerned about not being properly equipped to present his case before the ruler of Egypt. So God commissioned his brother, Aaron the Levite, to speak on his behalf. This reminds us that although an intercessor may be called to be an instrument in one area, the Lord may use another to augment, enhance or present the fruit of their intercessory labours.

The Honour of the Name

Having received his commission, Moses was sent forth in the authority of the Holy Name which had been declared to him (Ex 3:14f). The commissioning of Moses clearly illustrates that his mission was to be undertaken in the name and power of the Lord. In the ancient Near East, possession of a holy name was believed to be a token of power. It was thought that the utterance of that name would bring forth the spirit known by that name. This spirit could then be manipulated or worked alongside. This explains the Lord's enigmatic reply to Moses.

Moses illustrates an intimacy with the Lord which is second only to that of Jesus.

Today, it is sad to observe that the names of the Lord and, particularly, the name of the Messiah — Jesus — are often regarded as words of power. They are recited as a mantra, rather than the objects of devotion and as the expression of a relationship (Ps 9:10).

The degree to which Moses understood the honour of the Name was clearly illustrated whenever Israel lapsed into idolatry. Moses' intercession, at those times, was that God would refrain from destroying his people for the sake of the honour of his Name (for example, see Num 14:5-19, cf. Ezek 36).

An interesting aside is that on one occasion the Lord stated that he knew Moses' name. Today that may seem a little trite and obvious, but at the time names were more than a simple label of identification. They were either titles of honour or descriptions of character. The comment about the Lord knowing Moses’ name simply means that God knew Moses' character. We might well ask the question today: as well as knowing God personally, are we prepared for God to know us?

A Model Intercessor

Faith was the driving force in Moses’ life (see Heb 11:23-29). It was through his faith that Moses gained the increasing certainty and confidence he needed to build his relationship with the Lord.

Moses was familiar with apparent failure. His initial approach to his people fell upon deaf ears, due to their broken spirit and cruel slavery (Ex 6:9). Meanwhile, his words were treated with disdain by Pharaoh.

Moses’ family were not the strength he could have hoped for. The people’s apostasy to the golden calf involved Aaron (Ex 32:1), while both Aaron and Miriam rebelled against Moses’ authority because of his marriage to an Ethiopian (Num 12:1). In the midst of all his tribulations Moses received wonderful strengthening from the Lord. The challenges and setbacks were all attended by reassurances from the Lord of his person and character, together with assurances about the future.

In the midst of all his tribulations Moses received wonderful strengthening from the Lord.

Throughout the wilderness wanderings Moses was the only one qualified to intercede for Israel because he was the only one who was not involved in the sin of idolatry. Moses’ concern for his people was so great that he put all thoughts of personal glory aside (Ex 32:32, cf. Phil 2). In particular, he was willing to forfeit his life (cf. Paul in Romans 9:3) and did not consider personal gratification above the good of the nation (Deut 9:14).

Knowing God’s Character

Moses showed his skills of advocacy (Ex 32:11-15) by praying God’s promises back to him. Whenever he faced rebellion against either his spiritual leadership (Num 14:3) or his secular authority (Num 16:41-50), he appealed to the Lord’s honour (Name).

In response to the calamity brought about by a later revolt, the people began to realise that the one who had a personal relationship with God and kept their faith intact was the one who had authority to enter into the presence of the Lord to intercede on their behalf. This is a penetrating truth for the leadership of today who get discouraged in their standing for truth. He who prevails will overcome.

Such prayer requires an intimate knowledge of the character of God. For Moses, this knowledge came from both regular and extended times spent in his presence (Ex 33:7-11). On one occasion, Moses spent 40 days and 40 nights alone with the Lord on top of a mountain. It was during this time that he received the tablets of the Law (Ten Commandments) and the instructions for building the Tabernacle (Ex 24:12-18).

Moses knew God personally and had the distinction of being referred to as God’s friend. He was a person with whom God communicated ‘face to face’ (Ex 33:11), whereas others only knew of him (his acts).

If you know God’s character, then you should not fear for the future. Fear is a manifestation of unbelief which implies no knowledge of the character of God. God keeps his promises and never lies (Num 23:19). Irrational fear is an idol, since the fear has more influence than God’s ability to deliver.

Moses knew God personally and had the distinction of being referred to as God’s friend.

The intercessor needs to develop a personal relationship with God. Moses knew God’s character - therefore he could pray back to the Lord his own promises. A further example of this type of intercession is found in Isaiah, where the Prophet calls upon the reader to remind the Lord of his promises concerning Jerusalem (Isa 62:6-7).

Anyone who aspires to be an intercessor should attempt to develop such a relationship with God. God’s character will be discovered as one studies the Bible and spends time in his presence.

A Warning from the Life of Moses

The record of Moses’ ministry ends on a sad but apposite note. Intimacy, if one is not careful, can lead to a degree of unacceptable familiarity. When the people were camped at Rephidim, they complained about their condition because of their lack of water. They were even ready to stone Moses. Moses called out to the Lord and was commanded to strike a rock in the presence of the elders. He was to use the rod that had parted the Red Sea. This action would bring forth water (Ex 17:1-7).

Later, at Kadesh Barnea, when the people were again complaining that there was no water (Num 20:3), Moses appealed to the Lord. On this occasion, he was instructed to speak to the rock. While it is not our place to judge Moses, it seems that he committed two cardinal errors in the way that he dealt with this problem.

First, along with Aaron, he took the place of God by declaring: “Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?” (emphasis added). Secondly, he recalled the former incident and relied on his previous experience by choosing to strike the rock, rather than speak to it. The result was that neither he nor Aaron was allowed to enter the Promised Land (Num 20:9-13). This is a salutary lesson for us to take God’s instructions seriously!

Yet our nation-builders chose a solid foundation!

In searching out a memorial plaque to a Jewish relative while spending time with family in the heart of London, I marvelled at the magnificent statues paying tribute to nation-builders who followed Christ.

Among them were Robert Raikes, William Tyndale and General Gordon of Khartoum – men who truly denied themselves as they took up their cross to follow Jesus; and in so doing left a legacy which no amount of this world’s wealth could ever match.

They had certainly taken to heart the Saviour’s warning, “What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?” along with his call to build on the rock of his words rather than on the sand without foundation (Mark 8:36; Matt 7:24-27).

True Heroes of the Faith

Robert Raikes was the founder of the Sunday School movement, through which generations of children were taught about the love of God through his one and only Son. Tragically, few attend these days and fewer still have any knowledge of God’s laws and commands; is it any wonder that we live in an increasingly lawless society?

William Tyndale was burnt at the stake for daring to translate the Bible into English nearly 500 years ago – and his dying prayer was that God would open the King’s eyes to its enduring truths! His prayer was answered; the Bible became the world’s best-seller and Britain became a great nation built upon God’s laws. Thankfully, our present Queen is already a follower of Jesus, as she makes quite clear in her annual Christmas messages. But it’s the eyes of many of her subjects that need to be opened.

Nation-builders like Raikes, Tyndale and Gordon truly denied themselves and took up their cross to follow Jesus, leaving behind an unmatched legacy.

General Gordon won many battles for Britain before losing his life in the defence of Khartoum. He declined both a title and financial reward from the British government, but after some persuasion accepted a gold medal inscribed with a record of his 33 military engagements. It became his most prized possession.

After his death in 1885, however, it could not be found. It was only later, when his diaries were unearthed, that it was discovered how, on hearing news of a severe famine, he had sent the medal to be melted down and used to buy bread for the poor. He had written in his diary, “The last earthly thing I had in this world that I valued I have given to the Lord Jesus Christ today.”¹

Gen. Gordon was a Christian who knew where his treasure lay. Are we as willing to heed Jesus’ teaching not to invest in this world’s treasures, but in the eternal kingdom where moths and vermin cannot destroy, nor thieves break in and steal (see Matt 6:19-21)?

God’s Allowance of Disaster

As I turned to peer through the trees of the Thames Embankment, I was impressed by our ultra-modern skyline with its strange but interesting shapes piercing the heady atmosphere of this bustling city. The pointed, pyramid-like structure of the Shard is uncomfortably close to what I imagine the Tower of Babel to have looked like. It certainly seems to echo the arrogant boast of the ancients about making a name for themselves with a tower that reaches the heavens (see Gen 11:1-9).

But how fragile this all is, for just a few miles west stands the blackened skeleton of the 24-storey Grenfell Tower, an ugly memorial to the 80 people who perished in the inferno there on 14 June – victims, it seems, of poor design and construction.

When New York’s 110-storey Twin Towers came crashing down at the hands of terrorists in 2001, we were understandably shocked at the depth of depravity shown by fanatical Islamists. But did we ask if God was perhaps using a ruthless people to bring us to our senses, as the Prophet Habakkuk discovered to his shock in ancient times?

Are we as willing to heed Jesus’ teaching not to invest in this world’s treasures, but in the eternal kingdom where moths cannot destroy, nor thieves steal?

Of course, I am in no way trying to justify the motivation of those who committed this atrocity, but the Twin Towers clearly represented the Western world’s focus on material wealth, and of its greed and avarice often at the expense of the poor and needy. Having said that, the perpetrators of that terrible disaster, in which some 3,000 perished, saw it more as an attack on the West in general, and Israel in particular. After all, New York is home to more Jews than any city in the world, including Tel Aviv!

Like the ruthless Babylonians of old, the terrorists hated the Jews above all. And the shocking thing was that God allowed the attack to happen, as he had done in Habakkuk’s day when the Temple was destroyed and the Jews were carried off into exile.

The Will to Fight

As we have turned our backs on the God who made Britain great, the prospect of being invaded by enemies forcing us to worship foreign gods is not far-fetched. To a certain extent, it has already happened. As Dr Clifford Hill made clear last week, Britain was only spared from Nazi invasion by a nationwide response to repeated calls for prayer from King George VI, the Queen’s father.

Have we the spine, or the will, to resist the invading forces of evil in the gathering gloom of politically-correct immorality now threatening our land? Or have we resisted God so long that we are no longer able to distinguish good from evil?

But if you still have (spiritual) ears to hear, God is concerned for your soul. It is the most precious thing you own. If you store up treasure on this earth, who will have it when you’re gone?

I am not only addressing those on the fringe of church life, or even outside of it altogether. There are many Christians who spend far too much time concerned for the things of this world rather than pointing men and women to Christ, who alone can satisfy our souls. The cross is the way to life. Jesus said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no-one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). There is no other way to eternal life. Preach the cross; preach Jesus. Win souls for Him!

References

1 Gordon, S. Cuckoos in the Nest. Christian Year Publications, p123.