So far your 'point' has consisted of asserting that an 'Evolutionary bias' pervades the many sciences that contribute to the SToE.
Ichy did indeed address your 'point, as I did in a previous post. The refutation of your 'point' is contained in the following comment from Ichneumon:
"There is a vast and overwhelming amount of evidence along multiple independent cross-confirming lines which match, in very specific details of both the similarities and the differences between species, at everything from the molecular level to the contents of DNA to morphological similarities to biogeography to the fossil record, which match to a very detailed degree the exact and specific features which would be produced by evolutionary common descent, and do NOT match the kinds of features which would be expected due to just a "common designer"."
The point both Ichneumon and I have made to you is that the convergence of evidence from multiple lines tends to remove any 'interpretive bias' from the conclusions. The more independent lines that contribute to the overall conclusion the fewer the possible conclusions. This is an artifact of evidence collection and as a process is validated not only in the sciences linked to Evolution but in all forensic sciences and physical sciences such as Quantum Physics. Each new data point eliminates one or more alternative interpretations.
What you seem to miss is that many of the initial sources of data for modern Evolution came well before Darwin. On top of that, many of the pre-Darwinian evidence sources were theists. To claim - to assert, as you have done - with absolutely no factual basis that the multitude of evidenciary lines are interpreted says much more about your bias than it could possibly about the bias of scientists. Scientists routinely deal with data points which have to be considered in light of other data points. This forms the basis for their considered evidence.
What you have brought to the table is nothing but conjecture and assertion. If you want to be taken seriously then you need to back your assertions with more than other foundless assertions.
That's not a refutation.
That's a generalized assertion.
Course, no one expects evos to know the difference because they demonstrate that they don't quite regularly, like you just did.
Thanks.
The following is incomplete:
"To claim - to assert, as you have done - with absolutely no factual basis that the multitude of evidenciary lines are interpreted says much more about your bias than it could possibly about the bias of scientists."
It should read:
To claim - to assert, as you have done - with absolutely no factual basis that the multitude of evidenciary lines are interpreted with an unfounded bias says much more about your bias than it could possibly about the bias of scientists.