I think I have nailed down creation myths, but it is hard to put it down in writing... Any way, I'll begin right in the middle of it all, and I apologize for the grammar, but I first put down this text in Latvian, so it may have some weird sentence structures.

Creation myths don't speak of or refer to the creation of the material world. They speak of the act of comprehending and giving substance/meaning to the manifestations of the objective/natural world. But it could only happen simultaneously and not previous to the creation of language. Like Navajo indians say "Speech is the outer form of thought, and thought is the outer form of knowledge. And knowledge is the awareness of the primordial constituents of the universe".

Humanity created its world with language, with the first word. And where there is one word, others must inevitably follow.
Any word is a generalization, fiction, a metaphor. We look at light and say "light". And by doing so we have created light in our consciousness and the consciousness of humanity - light, which will later in all cultures be associated with enlightenment, clarity, God, holy. But this "light"/"svet"/"gaisma"/"lux" is not the objective light, it is only our idea of light, and a thought about other things associated with it.
The objective light is best described by a physics formula, not language. But the best way to comprehend it is without the associative filters of our consciousness, but just to look at it without using language.

And the first humans created all the human world by naming all the things, and from these names associations, metaphors, comparisons, etc. emerged. All that has little to do with the objective reality. And thus first humans had created their world, the world of humanity.
To create a new world in a mythological sense means to create a new meaning of the world and its laws.

With speech the human world was created. Before speech there didn't exist the subjective world of humanity, the world as we see it, understand and comprehend it today.
Speech allows us to think conceptually about the future, past and present, speech allows us , with logical, associative and other links, to link past with the future, speech allows us to subjectively and conceptually create/imagine other/alternative worlds. Thus with speech religion was created, and before language there couldn't exist a religion. Speech makes it possible for human creativity and art to be.
Before language the prehuman mind belonged to the chaos, to the objective reality and its dynamics. The prehuman wasn't the master of his subjective world, the prehuman couldn't create (fictional, potential, possible) worlds. With the first word human created his (mytho)world. The universe of humanity began with a word.

In creation myths a new world isn't created, it already exists, exists something from which forms and objects emerge - primordial chaos, sea, darkness. There exists an unknown world with no maps and no names.
With speech and words first humans made this unknown into known, humans through language put this unknown into their comprehension/consciousness, they gave it meaning and laws. They then could freely operate with these conceptual objects, conceptually think about them, create (fictional) worlds, perception and ideas, philosophies and religions.
With this creation or the language of creation humans created such concepts as "God", "light", "stone", "tree", "human".

Examples are various and many, from the creation myths of the american indians, to ancient egyptians, greeks, christians, australian aborigenes. Read them!

Creation myths speak of that moment when humans first created a word, a language, of that moment when what previously was chaos, became law and order, and meaningful. Creation myths speak of the creation of the subjective world of the humanity, of the creation of all of which the foundations among other things are the archetypes. Creation myths speak of the creation of human.
Before that only a prehuman existed, a creature without language, religion, culture, conceptual thinking, art and science.

It's very important. It means that creation myths for us open a window to our most ancient origins, to the very roots of humanity and the ways prehumans saw the world before us.

We are too immersed in our own creation - language - subjective world of the humanity. We have largely replaced the natural world with our subjective/conceptual one, conceptual objects, not natural ones.

It doesn't mean that our conceptual world is less important or true, or real, but it is real in other way. It is real for our subjective mind, but it is not real in relation to the objective world, not in the sense as the nature of light or energy can be revealed by a physics formula.

Don't use language when thinking about the natural world.
Use language when thinking about concepts such as en*light*enment, honour, friendship, etc,
but don't think "tree" when looking at a tree. don't think light, when looking at light. Just look and take it in your psyche without using language and metaphors, take it for what it is, for it's a miracle beyond the capacity of human language.

To conclude: through creation myths we can research humanity, understand our as humanity's true being and look at the world as prehumans did. Through creation myths we can understand how we created humanity, and how humans created the world in which we live in.

And God said: "Let there be light!" And there was light. And God saw the light, and it was good.

Thank you for this. It was enlightening to the connection of how I've always felt about things. Strange how the human mind is really nothing more than the concept of a stone. The stone didn't always have the structure it currently has, but a past, present and future. In other words, the concept of a stone is a thought in of itself. By labeling concepts with an easy metaphor "stone" we can create axioms in thought to build on past the complexities of the mind's pragmatistic focus.
We ascended our natural world when we first spoke, thus God was created because a pattern arose. If we can transcend the beasts on Earth, something must transcend us, if not today then eventually.
Genesis is the opposite of the end...thus to learn how things began we can gauge where we stand.

Language created the physical universe.

I wouldn't go that far. Have any evidence to back it up?
Any way, this is not the place to discuss that, we have the Physics and Pseudoscience forums for that.

Have any evidence to back it up?

not really, but genep said it and he's really intelligent. http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_integral_philosophy/in_the_beginning_was_the_word-t17113.0.html;msg184920#msg184920

Might as well give a very broad version of the scientific creation myth:

First there was no consciousness or emotions. Inorganic substance was the rule. Then through random interactions certain molecules began making copies of themselves. Much later these molecular combinations became complicated and consciousness and emotions arose.

Inorganic, non-consciousness is primary.
Organic is secondary. A small scale exception. Sentience is an even smaller subset of the organic.

Science has always had the bias against consciousness and sentience - this is shown in the way science viewed animals, a view that has only recently changed. Science assumes that consciousness is an exception AND THAT IT IS BEST TO ASSUME THINGS ARE NOT ALIVE unless proven (in double blind studies) that they are not. Scientists are therefore skeptical of all attributions of life and consciousness where they don't see it. (I want to stress that scientists are making a metaphysical claim - non life is the rule - a methodological claim - it is best to assume things are not alive first - and a lifestyle claim - assuming things are not alive is a better lifestyle choice than trusting one's intuition that something is in fact alive. None of these assumptions are proven.)

This sets them at odds with those who experience life adn consciousness everywhere.

What does this Creation Myth say about Scientists? Why might they have a near to think the Inorganic is Primary? In the case of animals, what need did it satisfy to think of them as machines? Does this have something to do with confusing language use - with discrete words - with intelligence? Does it have something to do with a distrust of intuition, despite the clear use of intuition in their own field? Do tendencies in scientist skills and personality types affect the skills that scientists say are the ONLY VALID ones for ascertaining knowledge? Can there be undercurrent fears and competition with those who have other skills? Is there a a fear of life?