Creation myths are not unique to religions. Physics has one too. Big bang theory.
Jews and Christians imagine a God who takes time to rest. A mathematically useful model of the physical universe that grants space-time a mother would seem reasonable enough. Sure she’d be deemed violent and only grow more distant over time, but she’d be ours.
I would think physicists would want to avoid myths, creation-related or otherwise, all together. Why bother with tall tales? They not only encroach on religion’s main job but seem contradictory to the scientific method they hold sacred.
The thing is, for physicists (and the tiny alien mathematicians sequestered inside them – another interesting myth I’ve heard to reconcile all of the metaphysical matters they unearth, an origin must be defined. It’s not their fault the universe started with a violent outburst! The job of documenting its aftermath is a dicey one but worth the risks of MAKING SHIT UP, because that’s the only way we can have a world in which longer acting deodorants are possible and robot dogs turn accurate flips.
Science is a method, but also a promise.
My problem with the big bang theory is not the creation part or even the no-way-to-know-its-not-a-myth part. My problem is that the agreed upon mass-energy model it spurs is in the style of Genesis rather than natural selection. Whether a big bang did or did not happen, in all likelihood the assumptions about how it relates to the nature of mass and energy are quite wrong. The real myth is that scientists’ assumptions are inherently correct and unchangeable.