Talking snakes, dirt-eating snakes, unicorns, mysterious trees of "Life" and "The Knowledge of Good and Evil," giants, dragons, leviathans, satyrs, ruminant rabbits, bird-bats, four-legged insects, melting snails, storehouses for snow and hail, and let's not forget:
". . . for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent" [Isaiah 14:29] and
". . . the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted." [Genesis 30:39]
The supernaturalist may be a source for spiritual wisdom, but I wouldn't take too far the notion that he wields a particularly "sane" view of nature.
". . . the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted." [Genesis 30:39]
This is not so far fetched. We already know that animals can sense predators in the area, and such sensing will cause phenotypic changes in their offspring. I don't think that it would be too out-of-touch to propose that visual senses can contribute to this as well, and to think that like other senses, it can be tricked to produce specific sensation and response.
Seen any "phlogiston" lately? Have you bled your kids to relieve them of evil humours causing fevers, Theodoric? Has a Piltdown Man crossed your path of late? Don't preach to me about hokum, chap. Science is a "diversion" from important things and filled with as many wonderments as any verse you might cherry pick submit from the Bible, Dr. Hwang, stem cell provider extraordinaire.
Frank
PS I am neither a creationist nor a literalist. Roman Catholicism is fully open to evolution as one possible basis for man's existence. I am not a Darwinist, however, worshipping a secular religion that was advanced by Huxley.