Mark scheme help-
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:
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.
• 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.
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:
• 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.
• 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:
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)
Candidates are likely to display explicit evidence of argument focussed
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 (
of the Trinity with its associated difficulties
• a justifiable conclusion.