The way I described myths, yes. If you read revelation, the guy's talking about giant locusts with human heads (sounds kind of like Hueys) and beasts that crawl backwards spitting fire from their tails (sounds kind of like mobile artillery) and so forth. The point is, this guy saw *something* that he had no familiarity with and no way to describe. I don't doubt that he saw something, but his understanding limited his ability to write it down. In a similar way, human language and understanding only allow so much of a literal account of creation. In my reading of the creation myth, I believe:

God spoke creation into being
God intentionally created everything in existence
God created Mankind as the pinnicle of creation, in His own image. He also created Mankind with greater care and in a different way than the rest of creation (sculpted as opposed to spoke into being)
And so on.

So I would call it a myth insofar as it is trying to describe and define something with no perfect equivalent in human experience. I would call it a true but imperfectly related account rather than a folk tale or anything like that. After the Noah story, I read the bible strictly literally. Pre-Noah, I read it as I read the creation account.

I just hesitate to name it "myth" because myth is so hazily defined these days.