Feedback — RS Creation: Is What the Bible Says True?

Teacher Next Steps

Based on the Examiner's Report for AQA 8062/13 Q01.5 (June 2022) and common weaknesses identified in student responses to this question.

1. "Evaluate, Don't Report" Drill: The Examiner's Report notes that weaker responses simply "reported different viewpoints with no attempt at evaluation." Give students a statement like "The creation story is literally true" and ask them to write three sentences: (1) What a literalist would say, (2) WHY this argument is convincing, (3) WHY someone might disagree. This trains the evaluative reflex.
2. "For Christians" Focus Exercise: The Report highlights that students who ignored "For Christians" and wrote about atheists or other faiths limited the effectiveness of their response. Give students the statement and ask them to underline every sentence that specifically addresses what Christians believe. Any sentence that doesn't reference Christianity needs rewriting.
3. Biblical Reference Integration: Level 3 responses had religious references "inserted at random points, with no obvious link to the logic of the argument." Level 4 used them AS PART of the argument. Practise this: give students Genesis 1:1-3, John 1:1-3, and 2 Timothy 3:16 and ask them to write a sentence that uses each quote to PROVE a point, not just mention it.
4. Literal vs Metaphorical vs "Story of Its Time" Trichotomy: The strongest answers explored three positions, not two. Teach students that the creation story can be (a) literally true, (b) a metaphor containing spiritual truth, or (c) a product of its time (c.500 BCE) that uses contemporary language to express belief in God as creator. This gives students a third analytical strand.
5. "What Does 'True' Mean?" Discussion: The Report notes that the best answers explored "how metaphorical truth is as valuable as literal truth." Run a class discussion: Is a story "true" only if it happened exactly as described? Can a parable be "true"? Can Genesis be "true" in a different way from a science textbook? This philosophical groundwork unlocks sophisticated evaluation.
6. Counter-Argument Sentence Stems: Many students presented two sides without evaluating which is stronger. Provide sentence stems: "This argument is convincing because...", "However, a weakness of this view is...", "This is more persuasive than the literalist view because..." These scaffold the evaluative language students need.
7. Link Genesis to John 1:1-3: The Examiner's Report specifically praises students who "skilfully drew in the idea that this spiritual interpretation complements scientific theories." Teach the link: John 1:1-3 says "In the beginning was the Word" — many Christians see this as confirming God's role in creation without requiring a literal 6-day reading. This cross-reference is a hallmark of Level 4 answers.
8. Justified Conclusion Workshop: The Report notes that conclusions don't have to come at the end — "some very effective answers began with their conclusions or placed them throughout." Show students three model answers with conclusions in different positions and discuss how each approach works. This frees students from formulaic structures.

Model Answer (Exemplar)

Evaluation Score: 12/12 + SPaG 3/3

Word Count: ~380 words (350 - 400 words are expected for a 12-marker)

Strong opening — immediately engages with the statement and establishes the literalist position with a clear reason.Many Christians believe that what the Bible says about creation is entirely true because the Bible is the inspired word of God. Since God is omniscient and omnipotent, the account in Genesis 1 must be accurate — God would not allow His word to contain errors. Direct biblical reference used AS PART of the argument — exactly what the Examiner's Report rewards at Level 4.2 Timothy 3:16 supports this, stating that "all Scripture is God-breathed," which means every part of the Bible — including the creation story — carries divine authority. Evaluation — explains WHY this reasoning is compelling for Christians. The logic chain: God is perfect → God inspired the Bible → the Bible must be true.This is a convincing argument for literalist Christians because if any part of the Bible were false, it would undermine the entire foundation of their faith — if Genesis is wrong, why trust anything else the Bible teaches? Develops the literalist position further with specific Genesis content and the link to John 1:1-3 — the Examiner's Report specifically praises this cross-reference.Furthermore, the creation narrative in Genesis 1 presents an ordered, purposeful account — light, sky, land, vegetation, creatures, and finally humans made "in God's image." John 1:1-3 reinforces this by declaring that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," suggesting the Holy Trinity was present and active throughout creation. Evaluative link — connects two biblical texts to show how the Bible supports itself internally. This is sophisticated analysis.For Christians, this internal consistency across both Old and New Testaments strengthens the case that the creation account is divinely revealed truth. Clear pivot to the opposing view — identifies non-literal Christians as a distinct group with their own reasoning.However, many Christians today argue that the creation story was never intended to be a scientific account. The Genesis narrative may date to around 500 BCE, a time when knowledge about the universe was very limited. Develops the non-literal position — the story uses the language of its time to express a deeper truth about God as creator.These Christians see the six days as a literary device — like Jesus' parables in the New Testament, which convey important moral and spiritual truths through stories that are not literally true. Key evaluative insight — the Examiner's Report flags this as a hallmark of top answers: exploring how metaphorical truth is as valuable as literal truth.This does not mean the creation story is false — rather, it is "true" in a different sense. It teaches that God is the purposeful creator of an ordered universe, and this spiritual truth remains valid whether creation took six days or six billion years. Introduces a third strand — science and faith can coexist. The Examiner's Report rewards students who link non-literal belief to scientific theories while keeping God central.Some Christians argue that God created through the physics of the Big Bang and evolution, and that Genesis describes this process in the poetic language available to its authors. Sophisticated evaluation — uses the teleological argument. The Examiner's Report specifically mentions this as a Level 4 feature.The extraordinary fine-tuning of the universe — the precise conditions needed for life — can itself be seen as evidence of a creator, supporting the truth of Genesis without requiring a literal reading. Excellent justified conclusion — weighs both sides, acknowledges the validity of each, and reaches a nuanced overall judgement. Note: the conclusion explores what "true" means rather than simply picking a side.In conclusion, what the Bible says about creation is true for Christians, but the nature of that truth depends on interpretation. Literalists find truth in the precise words of Genesis, while others find equally valid truth in its spiritual message. Both views keep God as the intentional creator at the centre, which is ultimately the core truth that all Christians share.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Top tier. Every argument is evaluated — not just stated. The answer explores what "true" means for different Christians, weighs literal against metaphorical truth, and reaches a nuanced conclusion that acknowledges both positions. This is exactly what the Examiner's Report describes as Level 4 practice.

2. Quality of Analysis Excellent. Logical chains built throughout: omniscience → Bible is accurate → creation must be true. Cross-references Genesis with John 1:1-3 and 2 Timothy 3:16. Links non-literal reading to parables. Introduces the teleological argument. Three distinct analytical strands: literalist, metaphorical, and science-compatible.

Strengths

Sustained evaluation throughout — every argument is assessed, not just described.
Biblical references (Genesis 1, John 1:1-3, 2 Timothy 3:16) used AS PART of the argument, not dropped in randomly.
Three analytical strands: literal truth, metaphorical truth, science-compatible truth.
Nuanced conclusion that explores what "true" means rather than simply picking a side.
Specialist terminology used accurately: omniscient, omnipotent, infallible, teleological, literary device.

Targets

Maintain this standard by also referencing the Babylonian creation myth as context for why Genesis was written — this would add historical depth.

Candidate 47293

Word Count: ~438 words (350 - 400 words are expected for a 12-marker)

Evaluation Score: 10/12 + SPaG 3/3

Literalists agree because they believe every word of the Bible and take it as what literally happened. The creation story took place in 6 days with events such as creating Earth, heaven, and life. This means that God created the entire universe in only 6 days, showing off his omnipotence. Literalists believe this because the Bible is infallible so they should understand it as what it says, not metaphorically. This argument is convincing because the Bible describes the story as 6 days, and there would be no reason to lie. Furthermore, God's omnipotence means that anything should be possible for him to do. The Bible says "with God anything is possible" which means that he is transcendent and above human capabilities. This means that God would be able to create everything in only 6 days and confirms the belief in the validity of the creation story. This argument is persuasive and in some areas infallible because God is omnipotent so there is no reason why the story is not true, however some people still believe the story is a metaphor. Many Christians believe that the creation story is a metaphor because there is no way he created the Universe in 6 days. They believe that the 6 days represent a wide range of time and could account for scientific events such as the big bang. This means that whilst God may not have created everything in only 6 days, he still created everything but took a longer amount of time. To some Christians this may show the thought God put into the world. Whilst this argument is valid, it is less convincing because there is no proof in the Bible for God taking longer than 6 days, so some people still take it literally. In addition to this, many people wonder if it is true because many of humanity are sinful. The Bible says "he created man in his own image", however many people are not moral. Moral evil exists and plague society, however God is not a sinful being. This means that people doubt the creation story because if there are doubts about humans being like God (loving and moral), it can raise doubts about what else might be exaggerated. This is a strong argument for many people because there is tangible evidence that contradicts the Bible however some people disagree because of theories such as the free will defense. In conclusion, I think the creation story is true for Christians because to them it is infallible. Although some take it as a metaphor, the vast majority chose to take it literally because they understand God's omnipotence.

Examiner's Feedback: 2 Key Areas

1. Quality of Evaluation Excellent. You evaluate the strength of every argument you present — "this argument is convincing because...", "this argument is persuasive...", "whilst this argument is valid, it is less convincing because..." This sustained evaluation throughout is exactly what the Lead Examiner highlighted as Level 4 practice. Your challenge using moral evil and the imago Dei is particularly sophisticated.

2. Quality of Analysis Strong. You build logical chains of reasoning — omnipotence → anything is possible → 6 days is credible → no reason to doubt. You also link the metaphor interpretation to science (Big Bang) while keeping God as creator, which the Examiner's Report identifies as a hallmark of strong responses. The imago Dei / moral evil chain is original and well-constructed.

Aspire: A More Nuanced Conclusion: You wrote: "the vast majority chose to take it literally because they understand God's omnipotence." This isn't quite accurate — many Christians worldwide hold non-literal views. Strengthen it:

"In conclusion, I believe the creation story is true for Christians, but the meaning of 'true' varies. Literalists accept it as historical fact because the Bible is infallible and God's omnipotence makes 6-day creation possible. However, many Christians find equal truth in the metaphorical reading — that God is the purposeful creator, regardless of timescale. Both views keep God at the centre, which is ultimately what matters for Christian belief."

Strengths

Sustained Evaluation Throughout: Every paragraph ends with an evaluative sentence assessing the strength of the argument — this is the defining feature of Level 4 writing.
Biblical References Integrated: "With God anything is possible" and "he created man in his own image" are used AS PART of the argument, not dropped in randomly — exactly what the Examiner's Report rewards.
Original Theological Argument: Using the imago Dei and moral evil to challenge the creation story is a sophisticated move that goes beyond standard responses.
Both Sides Developed: You don't just mention the other view — you explain it, develop it, and evaluate it against the first.
Specialist Terminology: Omnipotence, transcendent, infallible, metaphor, moral evil, free will defence — all used accurately.

Targets

Nuance the Conclusion: "The vast majority chose to take it literally" is not accurate — worldwide, many Christians hold non-literal views. A stronger conclusion would acknowledge that BOTH readings can be "true" in different ways.
Reference John 1:1-3: The mark scheme highlights John 1:1-3 ("In the beginning was the Word") as a key text that complements Genesis. Using it would show wider biblical knowledge and strengthen the "Bible supports itself" argument.
Explore What "True" Means: The Examiner's Report notes that the strongest answers explored how "metaphorical truth is as valuable as literal truth." You touch on this but could develop it — the creation story can be TRUE in the sense of teaching that God is creator, without being a scientific account.
Develop the Free Will Defence: You mention it as a counter but don't explain it. A sentence showing HOW free will explains moral evil while preserving the truth of "in his own image" would complete this chain of reasoning.

Extended Writing Feedback

Teacher Next Steps

Model Answer (Exemplar)

Candidate 47293