C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo House Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Find him everywhere: Find him everywhere

    16 replies to "Evolution vs. A Snake Talking: Are they really THAT Different?"

    • Ed Kratz

      Please note: Though I do not believe in evolution, I am simply comparing which one is more bizzare, without speaking to the truthfulness of either. In other words, this is just to make those who laugh at a snake talking yet accept without any sense of intellectual abandonment the theory of evolution think.

    • Dr Michael

      The difference is “God says” vs. “man says”.

      Also, it’s debatable whether it was a real snake as we think of it, or not.


    • Josh


    • Mike Beidler

      I actually find the talking snake story to be the more absurd of the two. And it was through the exercise of my intellect by which I accepted evolution. I’m just sayin’.

    • Sean R Reid

      Actually, the second is very believable because it’s demonstrable in real life. There is no shortage of evidence tracking evolutionary changes, even from species to species, while we have yet to find a talking snake.

      However, talking serpents are very prevalent in all sorts of epic folktales. They’re actually a common recurring character throughout literature dating back to the oral tradition.

    • Arni Zachariassen

      Yes, they are different. One is a theological creation myth, telling us about the relationship between the Creator and his creation, while the other is a scientific theory, telling us why the creation looks and functions as it does. Neither is stupid or absurd. Only by thinking they’re not different is one tempted to say that one or the other is stupid or absurd. By putting them in their proper place, we don’t have to do that. Indeed, we can accept them both for what they are and consider them both beautiful truthful accounts contributing in their own distinct ways a fuller understanding of the world in which we live. Pretty neat, huh? 🙂

    • Steve Douglas

      Well, IMO, to decide that an episode in a document of ANE provenance that’s strikingly similar to ANE mythology and would appear to be self-evidently fictional in any other piece of literature is actually history would take considerably more “abandonment” of the intellect than accepting the reams upon tomes gathered over the last 150 years and agreed upon by the best scientific minds, including Christian minds, especially considering the fact that much of that data directly contradicts elements of the ANE story (taken as history).

    • Ed Kratz

      I think you all are missing the point of the graphic. It is not to say that one is true and one is not (although, again, I do believe evolution is not truth and I don’t know whether the snake talking is meant to be taken literally). The idea of the graphic is the level of ridicule people will give to one account of a bizarre tale compared to the outright acceptance of another that is just as bizarre. If a single celled organism can talk, why not a snake?

      Point: If you accept evolution it is quit hypocritical to laugh about a snake talking.

    • Sean R Reid

      It’s hypocritical to accept a scientific fact and find belief in the historicity of something that is obviously mythical in nature to be invalid?

      Snake can’t talk. Genesis fits the pattern of ANE creation myths. At no point is it meant to be taken as historical fact and the text makes no claims as such.

      Evolution is a fact, just like gravity. It’s not ridiculous or bizarre or a “tale.” You don’t “believe” in evolution any more than you “believe” in gravity.

      Based on the facts, yes, you can actually think that belief in a literal talking snake is rather bizarre in comparison without being hypocritical.

    • Mike Beidler


      No disrespect intended, but maybe everyone else is missing the point because Credo House is the entity that created the cartoon. At some level, you’re still not getting the point across, and I suspect it’s because you don’t understand the evidence for evolution.

      Your claim that “if you accept evolution it is [quite] hypocritical to laugh about a snake talking” isn’t making a judgment call on the validity of evolution makes no sense to me. Only when I put on the “Genesis 2-3 is literal history” hat I wore for so long does it make sense to me what you’re really saying: evolution is demonstrably absurd, so I shouldn’t be so quick to judge a talking snake.

    • Steve Douglas

      But you only think that evolution is something to laugh at if you don’t believe or understand the evidence. The explanation on the graphic is completely misleading: as it presents evolution, the amoeba becomes a man — but that’s nothing like evolutionary theory. It’s a straw man caricaturization. “Organisms change over time, such that a single celled organism could have offspring millions of years down the road that develops into progressively more complex organisms, including eventually mankind.” That’s evolution, and I simply don’t find that absurd.

    • Ed Kratz

      You all are still missing the point. The point is not to poke fun at evolution, but to say that it makes no sense to believe that evolution happened and then laugh at the idea that someone believed a snake talked. Neither is more or less likely. Neither is more or less scientific.

      Maybe the snake talking is not to be taken literally. It is not easy to tell. Just punting to ANE mythology is somewhat question begging. But more importantly, it is not the point of this post.

    • Ed Kratz

      BTW: I don’t laugh at the idea of evolution. Did God use it? I don’t think so. But does it disturb my faith if he did? No. But the irony is that evolutionists DO laugh and ridicule the idea of a snake talking. With all the mysteries of the world and the bizarre things that are actually reality, we need to be careful with what we make fun of.

    • Sean R Reid

      I absolutely get the point. Regardless, you’re wrong.

      Evolution IS more likely. This is because it’s demonstrable and proven.

      It’s not the same as accepting that snakes can talk.

      You don’t “believe” in evolution any more than you “believe” that 1+1=2.

      We’re not missing the point. The joke you are making is inherently flawed because it’s based on a false premise.

    • Ed Kratz

      Thanks Sean, but you did miss the point. If you believe a single-celled organism eventually grew a voice box, your ability to accept what is fascinating, bizarre, and non-intuitive is certainly there. If God happened to have created a snake that talked, then took that ability away (though I don’t happen to believe that is how it worked), so what?

      My point, one last time: Both claims are bizzarre. Whether either is true or not is not the issue. The issue is the hypocrisy of the comic.

    • Ed Kratz

      For the sake of clarity, I am going to close the comments least this turn into an evolution vs. creation thread….which is not the point.

Comments are closed.