The creationist, intelligent design argument and Yakub myth all function from the same psychology, logic or worldview. This observation does not require each to be only considered within the framework of a scientific or historical claim.
What is the similarity? That undergirding some natural process (in the case of NOI mythology it would be racial diversity, in the case of creationism and intelligent design it would be the existence of life itself and the universe ) is a conscientious author.
If I wanted to make it more uniform- to conform to each "framework" I could. I would simply mention the NOI intelligent design position- I could even present Moat's elaborate gender based "brane" theory- but I am less focused on what "framework" each position remains in than looking at the psychology behind each world view. It is simply that each require an "author" to a natural process.
Try putting it in a Venn Diagram- to help you see similarities across "frameworks" you are limiting yourself unnecessarily by focusing on frameworks.
I also think the more devoted a religious mind is to "belief" it tends to display "fight or flight" response to the cognitive dissonance it will inevitably find itself in. The best of religious minds, in science, simply compartmentalize their beliefs when doing science and keep their religious "truths" separate and private. In other words if you believe in
- The black man being the original man- you will focus on archaelogical studies that support this and ignore that the original man is qualified as the maker, the cream of the planet earth and "god" of the UNIVERSE part in order to advance the myth to others. I can sympathize that, if accepted, it is a great boost to the ego though
- White people came from black people- you will focus on archaelogical studies that support this and ignore that the myth also states that these white people are genetic "devils" predisposed to evil and trained by a "mad" or "big head" scientist as he is commonly referred to in the NOI since birth to take over for 6000 years the planet because some gods wanted us to see the evil "germ" that exists in black people.
- That eating pork is wrong- (which is an opinion not a scientific claim) and as far as I know there is no evidence for the other claim that the reason the pig is "wrong" is because it was "created" for medicinal purposes (although it has been used historically for this reason- would not mean it was created nor for this reason), and that it was created in a genetic cross breeding experiment from a rat, cat and dog. Oh and god said don't do it because it's bad.
- Eating one meal a day- Is simply intermittent fasting and the idea existed before the 1930s (e.g. samurai warrior diet). But that's not the point. I concede that this is one of very few things that are not tied to myths (except for the one that "god" told him and if I can recall there is discrepancy with even whether the person called himself god or was called god by his followers after he disappeared- but I'm moving away from the point)
- Yakub- the big head, mad, devil making scientist
- Shabazz- tribe of rebellious, but strong! nappy headed variant of black people apart from the original and pretty straighter haired black people - I really could spend a day just on the insulting lectures behind this by certain ministers encouraging us to brush our hair so it will be straight and pretty.
- The mother plane, a spaceship, where god and his scientists reside hovering or somewhere waiting to come down and destroy murica and everyone that doesn't automatically 'believe' will be assumed to be with the white devils
- The god who blew up the earth and accidentally created the moon because he was angry and wanted everyone on the planet to be the same, so since he couldn't do this tried unsuccessfully to blow up the earth...
Myths are only historical claims to "believers." Because a believer automatically assumes it has a basis in truth. Otherwise, everyone else recognizes a myth for what it is - an invented story and way to understand the world. Whatever the case, no one takes a myth as a historical claim but those who only require as "proof" one man to say he met with god.