[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If there is any sidestepping here it is on the part of those who fail to acknowlege to subjective nature of the observer, and the emotional attachment one may have to his perceptions."

That's why science relies on the independent verification of many observers, not just one.

"Evolutionists are champions at hiding their biases while pounding their chests as if they alone hold the key to objective interpretation of the evidence."

So you claim.

"At least creationists honestly admit they subject themselves to a text they themselves did not spin out of whole cloth."

So you claim.

"Evolutionists have no guide other than their own opinions and what appears to be consensus among like-minded ideologues."

No, there's objective reality. There's evidence crosschecked by many individuals, some who are deeply opposed to each other's theories.

"In short, a science that depends upon human observers is no more sound than a science that proceeds on the basis of outside revelation."

You are arguing for a purely postmodernist, completely relativistic model for the acquisition of knowledge. According to what you just said, all knowledge claims have equal truth values. This is obviously false.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Objective reality is independent of the observer. I know of no observer who can be wholly independent of himself and his emotions. Consesnsus does not establish objective reality and is not an effective logical argument.