Mark scheme help-

Design Argument:
i: Candidates are likely to show evidence of selecting and adapting material  in order to present a well-structured answer focused on the topic of  evidence as used in the design argument. Typically, candidates are likely  to identify and explain key ideas. Candidates may examine:  • types and range of evidence • refinements to the design argument to strengthen its evidential  force as seen in the work of Swinburne • relevant key concepts such as aesthetic evidence • the status and value of evidence in inductive arguments leading  to conclusions that are probable. ii: Typically, candidates are likely to  display a careful analysis of alternative views such as an atheistic  conclusion supported by reasoned argument.

• the range of weaknesses undermine the design argument

• there are sound alternative explanations for perceived order and purpose

• there are sound reasons for putting forward an atheistic alternative to the design hypothesis noting this may be seen as just one among many alternatives

• a range of scholarly contribution adds weight to a non-theistic account of the cosmos coupled with substantive (Having a firm basis in reality and therefore important, meaningful, or considerable.) problems with this interpretation.

Problem of Evil/Suffering:

i:

Candidates are likely to show evidence of selecting and adapting material in order to present a well-structured answer. Candidates may draw on a range of religious traditions.

Typically, candidates are likely to identify and explain key ideas.

Candidates may: 

• examine the context of the two solutions in order to understand the significance of key ideas

• highlight the reasons for the strengths

• draw on scholarly contributions

• examine the rationale and purposes of suffering.

ii:

Candidates are likely to display explicit evidence of argument focused on the question. Typically, candidates are likely to display a careful analysis of alternative views supported by reasoned argument. Candidates may: 

• argue in a consistent manner about the strengths or weaknesses (merits or otherwise) of these solutions separately or together 

• draw on scholarly debates to substantiate a line of reasoning 

• debate various refinements to solutions that may strengthen them 

• formulate a justifiable conclusion about the validity of these solutions. 

God as Creator/Personal:

i:

Candidates may 

• Develop issues such as the immutability of God and how this relates to the requirement for Love that it is willing to change. 

• Consider whether the act of creation is itself a change and whether creation therefore can be seen as good. 

• Raise the question of whether God can be male or female. 

• Deal with Buber, with the imago dei (The Image of God), or with God’s authority over the world today. 

ii:

Candidates may 

• Consider these challenges in greater depth with reference to specific scholarly/Church opinion 

• Construct a coherent argument that may conclude that it is extremely difficult for a Christian today to continue to believe in God as personal and Creator or come to an opposite conclusion.

God as personal:

i:

Candidates are likely to show evidence of selecting and adapting material 

in order to present a coherent answer. They may examine: 

• a more detailed analysis of developing 

issues with reference to 

scholarly opinion such as of the unchanging nature of God 

(immutability) KEY WORD. the quality of being incapable of mutation

• an understanding of the requirement of love to change.

deal more thoroughly with Buber 

• modern Church teaching. (THE SCRIPTURES FLASH CARD) 

ii:

Candidates are likely to display explicit evidence of argument focussed 

on 

the question. Typically this may be achieved by: 

• an analysis of the problem of the love of 

God in Christ and his  

 

suffering on the cross 

• effective use of scholarly debate and 

discussion of Luther or 

Moltmann and The Crucified God

• dealing with problems of Patripassianism KEY WORD (In Christian theology, patripassianism is the view that God the Father suffers)

and relating it to a

 Monarchical view (

Monarchianism is a set of beliefs that emphasize God as being one person, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism which defines God as three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being.) 

 

of the Trinity with its associated difficulties 

• a justifiable conclusion.