I get a little weary of articles that imply that Christians are stupid and unreasoning. Maybe the article ("Creation Myths") didn't mean to imply that, but it seemed to. From my point of view, to call creationism a myth is to ignore the fact that matter (or energy) can be neither created nor destroyed. It had to come from somewhere. Hence, God. This is the elephant in the room that it seems to me is conveniently ignored by those who don't believe in a god of any sort, or authors who use the word myth to describe creationism. I believe the fossil record and I believe Genesis. The reason I can't reconcile them does not make Genesis a myth. It just means God hasn't chosen to show me. (If you think I'm starting to babble, remember the elephant.) So why can't the author of the textbook call creationism something other than a myth? I think words like that need to be challenged. Isn't that what science is all about, being able to stand up to challenges? And I think I can come up with answers to any challenge to creationism. In conclusion let me end by saying… elephant.