“By assigning each group of organisms to a kingdom, phylum, class, family, genus, and species, they can then be uniquely characterized. Their membership in a group tells us about the traits they share with other members of the group, or the traits that make them unique when compared to organisms in groups to which they do not belong.”
http://animals.about.com/od/scientificdisciplines/a/classifyinganim.htm
This is the way animals are classified. The bear and fox part ways when they start to part characteristics. Again the assumption is WHY they share these characteristics. You assume an evolutionary common ancestor. I assume a common creator.
What would someone assume if they found a platypus a million years from now?
You think that I am the only one with bias. It is ironic that your bias keeps you from seeing your bias. I have admitted that my interpretation of the evidence is based on my worldview (bias). When you can do the same when can continue to have an interesting discourse.
Okay so far...
Again the assumption is WHY they share these characteristics. You assume an evolutionary common ancestor.
No, I don't "assume" one. I accept that as the most sensible explanation for the similarities. And for why bears and foxes are more similar to each other than they are to cats. And for why foxes and dogs are more similar to each other than they are to bears. And for why the classification based on shared physical traits is borne out when comparisons were done on the molecular genetic level.
I assume a common creator.
Who made bears and foxes similar because...? But aside from the fact that "common creator" has no explanatory or predictive power, it's not an alternative explanation to the one I outlined above. Most people who accept common ancestry as the reason bears and foxes are similar also assume a common creator behind it all.
They aren't competing assumptions, for both those reasons. Trying to frame it as a question of competing biases is just a way of waving away the evidence for evolution. Of course you admit your bias--it's a tactic. I haven't asked you for evidence for a common creator, because I know there is none--or rather, there are no constraints on what can be called "evidence" for that assumption. It can't be falsified. its not the same as accepting the ToE, no matter how much you claim it is.