What relation exists between possible changes in the fine structure constant and the many various creation stories handed down to us from ancient times?
OK. In this instance I'm refering to Young Earth Creation Science rather than the creation myths you seem to be refering to.
From a creationist point of view, I am always amazed that when I pick up practically any issue of a science periodical (Discover, Science News, etc.) usually several articles either 1)support Young Earth Creationism (missing mass in the universe, etc.); 2)contradict Darwinian evolution; or 3)reveal errors or hoaxes of evolution (like the dinosaur/bird in National Geographic, or the hominid skull that turned out to be female gorilla). While, I admit, it is a stretch to say this article vindicates everything Setterfield wrote, if you're familiar with his theory, you should know that he attempted to collect every measurement of c and related constants and plot them. He said there was a real, measurable trend and it seemed to be an exponential decay.
The concept that c could change in any way was laughed at then. Now it's news.
None, but some young earth creationists, trying to explain away the problem of stars that are both visible and estimated to be over 6000 light years away, try to use early, less accurate estimates of the speed of light to argue that light used to travel a lot faster than it did now.
I take it that someone has proposed that the speed of light may have changed over time, and hence young earth creationists will try to seize upon this as vindication of their ad hoc explaining away of visible stars farther away than is possible assuming Bishop Ussher's famous date for the creation of the universe, much as Velikovskians crowed that the finding that Venus is hot "proved" Velikovsky's crackpot theories of planetary billiards as "explanations" of ancient mythology.