Your approach is wrong, and I don't know how it went wrong. (I assume the problem is deeper than "bringer change" being unknown to Google.) If you know what "Kolmogorov complexity" means, maybe think about how you would program a simulated world that allows such a change to be "fundamental" and yet produces the evidence that scientists continually find.

On the much less important issue at hand: you seem to have skipped the question of why this God would take legs away from any "snake," and precisely what that entails. (Should I ask how many Chinese dragons or "seeds" thereof were affected? Or would that distract from the why?)

(Sorry, this is rather long and I fear less clear than I would like.)

Uniformitarianism

We are in agreement that uniformitarianism is a matter of degree and that it's the complexity of the "rules" that matters, rather than of what happens. The most popular formulation of this idea around these parts is "Solomonoff induction": suppose that everything you observe is generated by a computer program, give higher initial probability to shorter programs, and then just do Bayesian inference as new observations come in. Aside from being totally uncomputable in theory and infeasibly expensive in practice and depending (finitely but hugely) on exactly what language you write your programs in and how you encode your observations, this is a really good way to decide what to believe :-).

So you're probably right that you can avoid taking an extra plausibility hit from talking snakes as such, if instead you say something like "around the time of creation, living organisms worked by divine magic rather than biology" or "... living organisms were based around completely different biology". That sort of proposition generally incurs a really big cost in plausibility, for two reasons.

If you're aiming for a theory that says "before, the rules were X; after, the rules were Y" then the problem is that now your program needs to contain both sets of rules. If you're never intending to go beyond "before, the rules were different; after, the rules were Y" then the problem is now your program needs to describe what happened "before" without the compression enabled by having those rules -- this is the "a witch did it" problem.

(How big a problem the latter is depends on how much you observe actually depends on what happened "before".)

It seems to me that "biology used to be completely different, in such a way as to make talking snakes not a problem" is obviously no improvement on "there was a (naturally) talking snake". And I think it is, actually, worse than just "biology used to be completely different" -- when a single rule change has to explain multiple anomalies, the more specific anomalies it has to explain the more constrained the rule change is.

Parallels

OK, so the idea is that you want to find a specific prophetic point of reference for the "he shall crush your head" thing (because obviously the idea that it might refer to people actually killing snakes is completely ridiculous, I guess) and that has to be Jesus because everything has to be Jesus[1], and then the only animate thing whose head Jesus can reasonably be said to have crushed is the devil. But, again, it doesn't seem to me that there's anything internal to the story calling forth such an interpretation, and I'd have thought there's an obvious completely straightforward way to understand the bit about crushing snakes' heads (especially as it comes right alongside something about snakes biting people's feet, which also seems like a fine example of something that doesn't require overinterpretation) -- so, again, this seems like something being imposed on the text from outside, and therefore not a good explanation for why (some) Christians take the snake to be / be controlled by the devil.

[1] Sunday school teacher: "OK, children, can you tell me what's small and brown and furry, with a big fluffy tail, and really likes nuts?" Child: "I'm sure it's Jesus, but it sounds a lot like a squirrel."

fundamentalists tend to be much less Uniformitarian

That's a fair point. But it seems to me that it amounts to saying that nothing in the stories in your scriptures could count as much evidence against their accuracy. (Suppose it said "And Adam, when he heard the sentence that the LORD God had passed upon him, knelt down upon the red grass and laughed for sorrow and shame" -- well, it's only uniformitarianism that entitles us to expect the grass to have been green or laughter to have been an unlikely response to sorrow and shame. Etc.)

In which case, you're also awfully limited in what conclusions you can draw from anything in those stories. "Genesis 3 indicates that God greatly values obedience to his commands." No, it indicates that he did; for all we know, he might want something very different from us now. "The story of the Great Flood indicates that God has authority over the weather on earth." No, it indicates that he did; for all we know, he might have somehow given up that authority since then. Do these stories actually have much value, if everything they describe might have changed utterly?

(You might say that God's character and values are known to be stable, unlike the laws of physics or anything in biology. But the sources that tell you that are 2000 years old! That's, like, 25% of the entire age of the universe! If God's character and values were changing on that sort of timescale, it's perfectly possible that these ancient texts might declare them to be stable even though they aren't.)

a small to medium snake wrapped around a tree branch

I don't think I was consciously or unconsciously assuming that. But I was assuming something that's recognizably the same sort of animal as today's snakes -- God says "upon your belly shall you go", etc., not "I shall replace you with something 1/4 the size which shall go upon its belly". I think I agree, though, that the Chinese-dragon interpretation is at least kinda tenable.

Christological interpretations

OK, that's a good point. (In terms of what it says about where Christian interpretations of Genesis 3 come from; I don't think the Christian tradition of finding prophecies and parallels everywhere in the OT is actually intellectually healthy, but it's certainly a real thing.)

But ... how good is that parallel, actually? I mean, Judas is not (so far as I can tell) in any way usefully parallel to either Adam or Eve, and the temptation of Jesus seems very different in kind from that of Eve, and most of the actual opposition Jesus is reported to have had comes from very human sources.

I think if you're looking for a parallel to the temptation-and-disobedience of Adam and Eve, through which sin and death enter the world, the place you need to look is for some temptation-and-obedience of Jesus through which sin and death are conquered. And there is indeed an obvious such thing, which takes place in the (aha!) garden of Gethsemane, where he is clearly at least considering the possibility of saying "no" to what he has to do but goes ahead with it ("not my will, but yours, be done"). But this temptation is, so far as the stories say, entirely endogenous; we're shown no tempter, whether human or animal or evil spirit. So I'm not really seeing how any parallel between the Adam&Eve story and the Jesus story is made closer by having the snake in Eden be possessed by, controlled by, or an incarnation of, the devil.

That doesn't mean that the tradition that says the snake "was" the devil doesn't arise from a desire to find such parallels, of course. But it doesn't seem to me so obviously well explained in those terms as to make me abandon my more cynical theory :-).

Not sure where to start regarding the oddly-named "Occam's Razor" - though we can immediately dismiss the idea that one could do Newtonian Science without it. Possibly we'll discuss this, and modern attempts to formalize simplicity, some other time.

Let me quickly note that the Chinese dragon interpretation would make God's curse on the serpent even weirder.

I think there are two separate questions here.

First: does saying "hahaha, these guys believe in talking snakes, how ridiculous" sound like it demonstrates a lack of understanding and engagement? I think the answer to that is clearly yes, at least if you say it to thoughtful people with some understanding of this stuff. (But maybe not if you say it to people who are already convinced or to people who haven't given serious thought to these questions at all; so maybe Maher was preaching to the choir[1] and/or trying to shock unthinking believers into questioning their beliefs for the first time.)

[1] A curious phrase, that. Some Christian churches -- I'm thinking e.g. of Anglican cathedrals and Oxbridge college chapels, where the music is a Big Deal -- have quite a lot of people in their choirs who are there only for the music and might be perfectly reasonable targets for preaching.

Second: does saying "hahaha, these guys believe in talking snakes, how ridiculous" actually demonstrate a lack of understanding and engagement? I think it clearly does in some cases (and suspect Bill Maher is one), but I think (1) there really is an argument against (some versions of) Christianity based on the silliness of believing in talking snakes, and (2) some (rude) people may choose to express it in simple in-yer-face terms even though they're capable of making a more sophisticated version that isn't so liable to look like lack of understanding and engagement.

The sophisticated version I have in mind, which I've sketched elsewhere in this thread, goes something like this.

• The story in Genesis 3 doesn't in any way suggest that the talking snake is an incarnation or avatar of, or being remote-controlled by, or otherwise magically influenced by, any supernatural evil being. It's introduced by saying "Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the other animals God had made" or something of the kind; when God is pronouncing his sentences on the guilty parties, what he says to the snake is (1) clearly addressed to the snake and not to some other being that controlled it and (2) clearly addressed to it as a snake rather than as some kind of incarnation of a vastly powerful spiritual being.
  • I understand that -- especially within the theologically-conservative-Protestant tradition -- many Christians do take the snake in the story to be, or to be controlled by, the devil. But it seems to me very unlikely that it was originally intended this way, and as I say there's nothing in the story to suggest that understanding. I suggest that this interpretation of the story may in fact be largely motivated by a wish to make the story less silly :-).
• So the people who created and spread this story, at least if they intended it to be understood as an account of something that actually happened, evidently didn't find anything unreasonable in the idea of a "natural" talking and thinking snake.
• But that idea is "silly" in the following sense: given some things we now know with great confidence about how the natural world works, we can see that a talking, thinking snake is not the kind of thing that could actually happen. A snake just doesn't have space for enough brain to think and use language.
  • Of course if you fill the space not with ordinary biological brain-stuff but with some sort of nanotechnological AI hardware, it might be perfectly possible; or if there is magic and the snake talks and thinks by magic; or if there are gods and devils and one of them is animating it; etc. But, again, that isn't the story being told here.
• Accordingly, the presence of the talking snake in the story really is an extra piece of evidence against the story, even given the other "magical" elements in the story -- not because talking snakes would require magic, but because the story shows every sign of being about a non-magical talking snake. (I am using "magic" and "magical" here in a broad sense, to include the exercise of divine or diabolical powers, even though believers in such powers will for good reason generally want to distinguish between those and "magic" as generally understood.)
• And if some religious tradition embraces the story as historical fact, that really is an extra piece of evidence against that religious tradition; against its general reliability (because if the story is wrong then the tradition is unreliable) and against that of its present-day advocates (because they really ought to be able to see how implausible the story is).

I personally think that saying "hahaha, talking snake" is counterproductive as well as rude, and I agree with Yvain that if you find a lot of smart people apparently believing in talking snakes then you should very seriously consider the possibility that (1) they don't believe quite what you think they do and/or (2) their beliefs are more defensible than they sound. But I also think -- and my impression from the note at the end of the OP is that Yvain does too -- that someone saying "hahaha, talking snake" may actually have a pretty good understanding of the issues and be making (or at least gesturing towards) a reasonable argument.

[EDITED to acknowledge that the devil-snake interpretation is quite widely believed and comment on that, and to tweak some wording a bit elsewhere.]

so the bottom lie was already written

Much though this amuses atheist-curmudgeon me, may I suggest that you might want to fix the typo?

Are those figures derived from any sort of numerical evidence-weighing process, or are they quantifications of gut feelings? (I do not intend either of those as a value judgement. Different kinds of probability estimate are appropriate on different occasions.)

Welcome! I applaud your decision to embrace hostile terminology. I don't think you should feel any obligation to bring up your religious beliefs all the time.

If you're interested in the interactions between unashamedly traditionalist religion and rationalism, you might want to drop into the ongoing discussion of talking snakes. Most of it lately, though, has been discussion between people who agree that the story in question is almost certainly hopelessly wrong and disagree about exactly which bits of it offer most evidence against the religion(s) it's a part of, which you might find merely annoying...

[EDITED to add: Aha, I see you've already found that. My apologies for not having noticed that you were already participating actively there.]

Just out of curiosity (and you should feel free not to answer), how "typically fundamentalist" are your positions? E.g., are you a young-earth creationist, do you believe that a large fraction of the human race is likely to spend eternity in torment, do you believe in "verbal plenary inspiration" of the Christian scriptures, etc.?

(Meta-note that in a better world would be unnecessary: it happens that one disgruntled LessWronger has taken to downvoting almost everything I post, sometimes several times by means of sockpuppets. I mention this only so that if you see this comment sitting there with a negative score you don't take it to mean that the LW community generally disapproves of my welcoming you or disagrees with what I said above.)

I’ve found the Welcome thread!

Hi, I’m Alia and I live with my husband in San Jose, California. I found this site via SlateStarCodex and having read Rationality:From AI to Zombies I think this is a fascinating and useful set of concepts and that using this type of reasoning more often is something to aspire to. I want to do more Bayesian calculations so I get more of a feel for them.

I’m also a fundamentalist* Christian. I’m perfectly ready to discuss and defend these beliefs, but I wouldn’t always bring up these beliefs in threads. I’m not trying to deceive or trick anyone, I just don’t want to derail a thread that is actually about something else. I do think it’s possible to be both a rationalist and a Christian as to stay reasonably intellectually consistent.

*(a note on why I choose the identification fundamentalist. Not long after American Christians split into mainline and fundamentalist groups, the fundamentalists got a bunch of bad press focused on certain sub-groups that were anti-intellectual. The other fundamentalists dealt with this by splitting off and re-branding themselves as evangelical. I’m not anti-intellectual and generally in the group that would self identify as evangelical, but I’m choosing to stick with the fundamentalist label for three reasons. 1) I don’t think changing the label or re-branding is a good way to deal with negative affect attached to a word. At best it just avoids the issue rather than solving the problem. 2) I don’t believe in disavowing people because they are unpopular with third parties. While I dis-agree with the anti-intellectuals on some things, the agreement on common core beliefs that lead to the fundamentalist label in the beginning is still there. 3) I think the fundamentalist label provides more clarity. The evangelicals worked hard and successfully to avoid getting over identified with and sub-group or coincidental characteristic. But as a result the label evangelical stayed vague, Individuals and groups that are more in the mainline tradition sometimes call themselves or get called evangelical. On the other hand opponents who wanted to hang on to the negative affect kept calling anything from the original fundamentalist tradition ‘fundamentalist.’ So on the I think fundamentalist will convey the most accurate idea of where I’m coming from theologically.)

When you are

striving to avoid arousing emotions that will hinder updating beliefs and truth discovery

And otherwise being diplomatic where do you draw the line between that and motte-and-baileying them or otherwise being rhetorically manipulative?

When I'm talking with a view very different from my view, if I offer a watered down version of my view (that I still believe is true) so that there will be less inferential distance, am I being collaborative or deceptive? I fine this question particularly troublesome on the internet where it's hard to build up a deep understanding of someone's position.