[quote="Judas_Thaddeus, post:15, topic:346660"]
If you human being was created from SCRATCH, that is molecule by molecule, enough to
create at least a reproducing cell that would develop into a human being, then PERHAPS
it would not have Original Sin, but would it have a soul? Doubt it.
Hold on there. What is the ontological difference between:
(1) an ovum fertilized by a live sperm in woman's body
(2) an ovum fertilized by a live sperm in vitro (IVF)
(3) an ovum to which we have transferred a DNA from a somatic cell (cloning)
(4) an ovum to which we have transferred a DNA assembled synthetically
I claim that there is none. In all cases, the ovum is just molecular machinery and DNA is just the information carrier.
Augustine's theory of original sin has been experimenally proven to be false when the first human IVF suceeded. It's dead. Cloning (step #3) is just another nail in its coffin.
So instead, modern Catholic theology tries to tie original sin to some elusive "human nature". The biggest problem with it, is that is is completely undefined -- nobody knows what it is, because nowadays nobody can provide a rigorous definition of a human.
Consider the following thought experiment. Human DNA and chimpanzee DNA are known to be 99% identical. So we take chimp DNA and start introducing changes to match human DNA -- one base pair by base at the time. Then we introduce each version into an ovum and let it develop -- creating millions of intermediary forms between a human and a chimp. Some of these will survive, so we let them grow into adulthood. (And since we're running a thought experiment, we have unlimited budget and do not have to worry about ethical committee). At the end we have, say, 1000 intermediary forms. Can you say which ones are ensouled and which are not? Which have original sin?