I can't confirm by archaeology the snake story other than to note it is unproven but also undismissible.
You've gotten it exactly backwards. You've zero evidence for it and all the evidence against, so it is not only something that can be dismissed, it also MUST be dismissed.
But yes, first of all, in the context of Bible history, we do first presume the story is true and it remains true until proven otherwise. That's the biblical historical position.
And again you've got it exactly backwards. You start with evidence and see what it supports, not decide what you want to be true and then look for that evidence.
So yes, he's a great archaeologist, and yes, I can see he is very handsome, but as a Bible historian he is as phony as three-dollar bill. That's my personal opinion. You want to criticize my position? You'll lose. But bring it on.
Your position is exactly backwards, shows a distinct lack of understanding and education in logic, critical thinking, the sciences and history. That is a fact. Consider your opinion criticized, eviscerated and lying in the sun with vultures closing in.