Of course it's possible. The question is not whether something's possible - meaning that you can quantify the chances of it happening as greater than 0%, no matter how minutely - but whether it's likely - meaning that the chances of it happening are meaningful. For example, take a person being hit by a meteorite. According to National Geographic, there is only one person in human history who's been confirmed to have been hit by a meteorite. As Michael Reynolds, an astronomer cited in that article, says, "You have a better chance of getting hit by a tornado and a bolt of lightning and a hurricane all at the same time."
So the question is not whether it's possible that someone might find evidence in the fossil record that shows that snakes evolved from a different ancestor, but just how likely it is that someone will. However, that's not the reason you're bringing this up. You're bringing it up so you can 'prove' that science textbooks are inaccurate, even though what you're referring to is pure semantics. Your whole point was that the textbook said that scientists knew something was true, and to cast doubt on whether they knew it for sure. That kind of anal retentive nitpicking doesn't really accomplish anything.
No. Science is not open to the kind of ambiguity you’re defending. Words have meanings and when arranged in a sentence they collectively convey a thought, an opinion, a fact, etc. One word out of place can have consequences and they are not open to personal meaning and interpretation. And, frankly, of all the places for someone to be advocating anything less than fully supported claims that have been accurately articulated, you should know that this forum tolerates very little of that….at least for us theists who participate here. I have experienced firsthand how one word or a short string of words can be turned against the person writing them because they were taken at face value.
You take the example I gave and add four, five, or six more instances of inaccurate claims made in the same textbook and what are the potential consequences? What occurs is that a student (or students) will begin to mentally develop an overall impression of the validity of the theory based on how all of the dots seem so well connected. Is that what you support? Feeding junior high, senior high, and college aged students lessons that contain proven claims that are really based on “close-to-being-true” findings? If so, that is rather disturbing.
I had asked my daughter to explain how she interpreted the snake-from-lizards claims in the book. She indicated that she took it to mean that science had proven snakes came from lizards. That’s just wrong. No one KNOWS how snakes came into being. I have read numerous articles and papers over the last several years that described how science had to radically alter its previous findings based on new discoveries and information….not specifically with regards to snakes but in other areas.
It is completely appropriate to indicate that science believes it has a strong case for snakes-from-lizards but to take it to the extreme that science KNOWS that snakes evolved from lizards is unverifiable with the information we have and thus it becomes a false claim. Period.
You can try and defend your position until the sun burns up but, frankly, I find it rather telling that you would condone errors and inaccuracies in a science text the way you are. It certainly doesn’t bode well for the scientific community to have people such as yourself promoting what many might label as deceptive and irresponsible.
Lastly, if you feel I am taking an isolated incident and blowing it way out of proportion then please do a Google search using combinations of the following words: “evolution” “textbook” “fraud” “science” and “lies.