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.
You are biased, you won’t admit it. Like I said nothing further to discuss.