If they haven't done so yet, I'm sure soon some Darwinists will be citing this freak of nature as evidence for evolution. A woman found a snake in her house - and it had one foot. Assuming this is not a hoax (which I think it likely is), there's no reason at all to take this as some kind of support for evolution.
First, I'm not sure what survival value one leg would confer. And mutations must have some survival value for them to be selected by nature and passed on. Useless mutations don't fit the criteria of natural selection. So if it is a foot on a snake, it could just be some random mutation. No creationist denies that odd mutations occur. I'll be imperssed when it reproduced a snake with a leg.
And this freakish foot doesn't even fit the evolutionary scenario since it has, supposedly, appeared fully formed on this snake. And, by the way, it's still a snake - not some halfbreed transitional species on it's way to becoming something new. It is, theoretically, a snake with a foot. Freakish, but not evolutionary.
Second, to interpret this as evolutionary proof is begging the question. To interpret this as evidence for evolution, past or present, is to tell a story, to impose a narrative on this. If evolution were true, then this could be construed to fit that theory. But it's not proof of the theory. I can interpret this according to my view, too, to support the Genesis curse. Snakes used to have legs, which became latent when God cursed them as a species, and that recessive feature just popped out on this snake. Things like this aren't proof of anything, and are equally open to alternative narratives.
This thing, if real, belongs in a sideshow, not a museum.