How to score full marks in Origins

We are very lucky in the Religious and Philosophical Questions unit because there is a very limited number of questions that can be asked in the exam.

However, many candidates still struggle with it and would benefit from simplifying their approach and following a stricter structure.

In the Origins section, you will be asked one 20-mark question. Remember there are 10 marks available for knowledge and understanding, 5 for analysis and 5 for evaluation.

If you are asked specifically about the origins of life you should focus on the story found in Genesis 2 and contrast this with the theory of evolution. Whereas if you are asked specifically about the origins of the universe you should only focus on Genesis 1 and the Big Bang Theory. Many candidates try to include both and end up not actually answering the question.

If the question asks about origins more broadly, then you may include everything but it is still acceptable to have a narrower focus.

Here is a sample essay with the marks annotated:

To what extent are religious views on origins of life the most convincing?

There are two religious views on the origins of life that are worth examining: those of Young Earth Creationists and Symbolic Christians.

This opening phrase does not gain any marks but indicates to the examiner you are directly responding to the question. It is also useful to help you structure your essay.

Young Earth Creationists read the Bible literally, exactly as it is written. (KU) They look to both Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 says that God made humans on the sixth day, (KU) and Genesis 2 says that God shaped man from the dust of the earth and then breathed life into him. (KU) God created woman from man’s rib to be man’s helper. He called them Adam and Eve. (KU)

Notice that you do not need to go into specifying each day of creation here. As the question is about the origins of life it should be focused in on that.

This literal interpretation could mean that humans have a special status because they were created last and with the breath of God. (A) It could also mean that Young Earth Creationists reject scientific theories such as evolution. (A)

These two sentences pick up Analysis marks because they are both consequences or implications of the KU previously set out.

Whereas Symbolic Christians view the Bible as a metaphor. They believe that the Bible should not be taken literally but is just there to teach us something. (KU) For example, human beings are not literally made from the dust but are dependent on the Earth for our existence. (KU)

We’re back to KU here – the second sentence could have been intended as analysis but note that is a belief held by symbolic Christians and is an explanation of how the Bible can be read metaphorical. So it is KU.

This means that Symbolic Christians could take global warming seriously and work to stop it as they know they need the planet to survive. (A) They might would also be more open to science and recognise the two can work together. (A)

Note the language: ‘could’ and ‘they might’ – these sentences would pick up analysis marks because they are both possible consequences of the KU.

On the other hand, scientists have provided an alternative view on the origin of life through the theory of evolution.

Although the essay is specifically asking about religious explanations, it also uses the phrase ‘most convincing’. Therefore, it is reasonable to look at the contrasting views such as scientific or non-religious beliefs.

In his book, ‘On the Origin of Species’, Charles Darwin described his theory that life has developed over time through gradual change. (KU) For example, on his travels to the Galapagos Islands, Darwin observed that finches in different areas had developed different kinds of beaks depending on the food source. (KU) He surmised that over time there are small variations in species which may benefit or work against their survival. Those with beneficial changes are more likely to survive and go on to have offspring. (KU)

When marking exams, I have read a LOT of random facts about Darwin. Stick to relevant information that you can analyse. No one cares about his beard.

This theory means that the world needs to be billions of years old because there needs to be that kind of time for these changes to slowly take place. (A) It explains why there are similarities between species but allows for the differences between them too. (A)

However, Young Earth Creationists believe they have evidence to support their view that God is the only explanation for the origin of life.

They argue as God has always existed it is logical to believe that He was there to witness the beginning of the world. (KU) His witness statement can be found in Genesis 1 and 2. For Young Earth Creationists, this account is better than any evidence that could be found for evolution. (KU) They could argue that evidence such as the fossil record can be explained away as a ‘trick from the devil.’ (KU) Or some may say that fossils are just all the creatures who died when God flooded the world in Noah’s time. (KU)

This paragraph has taken us up to 13 knowledge and understanding marks overall. The temptation would be to describe more evidence for evolution now, but resist – we already have 6 analysis marks and we need to give time to evaluation!

Therefore, I do believe that religious views on the origins of life are convincing. God is meant to be perfectly good and therefore He would not lie. So, it is wrong to think that there is not some truth to the Genesis account. (E)

It is important to note that we have used the language of the question here. The question has asked whether you find religious views convincing so that’s what your evaluation should be focused on.

However, I do not find them wholly convincing because Genesis 1 and 2 do contradict each other. Genesis 1 says that men and women were created at the same time, whereas Genesis 2 describes them as being created separately. So, I do not believe that both accounts can be true as they say different things. (E)

I do think that religion explains things better than science because the chance of human life occurring through the process of evolution still feels very unlikely. I think that it makes more sense to say that there is an all-knowing God guiding evolution. (E)

On the other hand, I do not find this a convincing argument because evolution is very brutal. We see that species struggle for survival, and those who do not adapt through chance mutation simply die out. It is contradictory that a loving God would cause a bird to be born with the kind of beak that would mean it would be unable to find enough food to survive. (E)

Therefore, overall, I think scientific views are ultimately more convincing than religious views because of evidence like the fossil record which can be tested and verified. There is no evidence to say that the devil put them there to test our faith but there is evidence that they are millions of years old through the process of carbon dating. (E)

Notice, that we needed to write a lot more to pick up those Evaluation marks in contrast to KU. It is meant to be the most challenging skill and that is why it is important to not write ALL the KU and to give time to evaluation.

Checking your understanding

For the next essay, annotate it with your own KU, A, and E marks. Remember KU can be identified by looking for factual information. Sometimes, candidates believe that they are analysing when they are just adding in more factual statements. Analysis is looking at the consequences or implications of beliefs – or finding links to other ideas. Evaluation are statements that specifically respond to the question asked – not the strengths and weakness of the ideas.

Sample Essay two

To what extent are scientific views on origins of the universe the most convincing?

The main scientific theory about the origin of the universe is the Big Bang theory.

Science suggests that the universe was formed 13.8 billion years ago in an event known as the Big Bang. It is believed that a space-time singularity containing all the matter and energy in the universe exploded outward and has continued to expand. Over billions of years, the universe has cooled down as it has expanded, eventually leading to the creation of stars and planets.

This means that God was not needed for the existence of the planet and there could be an entirely natural explanation. It also means that the universe is billions of years old and that a literal reading of the Bible is wrong as it says the world is only around 6000 years old.

On the other hand, some Christians would disagree as they do believe that there is truth in the Bible but it needs to be understood as a metaphor.

Symbolic Christians do believe that God created the world, but not in the exact way the Bible says. They would point out that both the Big Bang Theory and the Genesis account support the idea that the world did ‘begin’ to exist, and that it did not happen instantaneously.

This means that Symbolic Christians can accept scientific views, but might feel more comforted because they have an answer to the ‘why’ as well as the ‘how.’

However, some scientists believe that the evidence they have for the Big Bang theory is compelling enough that God is not needed.

For example, one piece of evidence for the Big Bang is redshift. Edwin Hubble studied distant galaxies and observed that they appeared red in colour. This red appearance is due to the galaxies being shifted towards the red end of the light spectrum, indicating that they are moving away from us and that their light is being stretched. This means that in the past, the universe must have been closer together – even up to the point that everything was squished into the microscopic dot that caused the Big Bang.

Another piece of evidence for the Big Bang is cosmic background radiation. Background radiation is present across the entire night sky, not just from stars and galaxies. This also supports the idea that the universe all came from a single point of origin.

Therefore, I think that scientific views on the origins of the universe are definitely the most convincing. There is not just one piece of evidence but lots of different things that have been repeatedly tested over time which, added together, provide a lot of support for the Big Bang Theory.

The only doubt I have is whether there will be something in the future to disprove what we know. In the history of mankind, the 60 years in which we have known about the Big Bang is not long and I do think we might discover more in the future so I am not totally convinced.

I am also unsure about the scientific view because it does not explain where all the matter and energy that made the universe came from to begin with. We can prove that it originated in a superdense dot that expanded, but it does not explain why that dot existed in the first place. So there are still gaps in the theory.

I also don’t think that it explains what the purpose of the universe is. It doesn’t provide any direction on what we should do with our lives and results in our existence just being a ‘brute fact’ which is not emotionally comforting at all.

But I do think that it is more convincing than looking to the Bible for answers. The Bible was written thousands of years ago before science really was a recognised subject. I realise some people might enjoy reading it but I do not think that a historical text should be used to provide factual evidence.

Note: Unless you qualify for extra time, you will have 45 minutes to complete an essay like this.