My dad got a ThD in comparative religion from his fundamentalist Lutheran seminary (even more fundamentalist today) over how American Indian flood and creation myths reflected actual universal truth of Genesis.
Of course, that's not the case. But, this Nautilus piece, looking specifically at part of Tibet and introducing the idea of geomythology, notes how flood myths are part of larger explanatory myths about local geological features.
Some are, indeed, nothing but just so stories. Lot's wife as a pillar of salt was simply a story about some salt pillar near the highly-saline Dead Sea. Others, like in the Tibetan case, appear to explain the "that" (but not the "why," of course) of actual geological events.
The real roots of the biblical flood story, of course, come from Sumer and a localized, though severe enough, Tigris-Euphrates flood.
The problem with such myths is often the "why" within the "why." Putting such events within a divine framework is one thing. Trying to use them to spell out, and justify, specific examples of theodicy is another altogether.
I've read David Montgomery's book, mentioned near the end, and will keep an eye out for his new one. I must reject his claim that science and myth are two sides of the same coin, at least with "are" rather than "were" as the verb.
