You addressed an issue that I think was missing in my post:
***My tendency in such cases is to look at scripture to decide which myths are more likely to be real, as I have often stated in past posts.***
I'm sure anyone of a secular persuasion would find that statement very difficult to digest. My position is that you don't necessarily have to select between myths (i.e., metaphysical descriptions of what is happening behind the scenes that provide a meaningful account to our experiences). Rather, a myth can be true for the field in question, and have no relevance whatsoever outside of that area of discussion.
For example, if I said that chairs exist and that I am sitting on a chair, for most discussions (areas of relevance) this is not a myth but an actually fact of matter. No one would even ask me to disacknowledge this supposed fact in favor of a religious tenet that I have labelled a myth. However, in another context such as philosophical context, saying that chairs exist and that I am sitting on one can be viewed as a myth. Such supposed facts can be viewed as a myth because the metaphysical description (chair) can be viewed as either true or not actually an accurate account of how reality actually is. It isn't accurate in that I might question the philosophy behind an actual object that is made of many atoms and that constantly has new atoms settle on the chair in the form of dust that henceforth becomes part of the chair, or the atoms that fall off the chair in the form of particulates, etc. The existence of a chair as a whole object is completely debatable in those philosophical contexts. In fact, there may only be atoms (or quarks or strings or mathematical symmetries, etc).
Therefore, I don't think it is necessary to choose between the myths of science which are applicable to science, or the myths of religion which are applicable to religion, etc. Similarly, myths can be true or can be false in different contexts.