Of course, you are 100% entitled to believe whatsoever you wish on this subject, just so long as you don't pretend your views are scientific when they are not.
Of course, science is "biased" -- because it attempts to explain reality from a human perspective, meaning in terms that ordinary humans can comprehend.
This human perspective on reality is necessarily not the same as God's perspective, which is reality-as-it-is.
God has no need for human models or short-cuts, no need for words or statistics to summarize reality-as-it-is.
To God, reality is real -- every vibrating sub-atomic particle is as real to God as the entire Universe.
But there's no possible way for humans to comprehend all that, and so we create (or better: discover) models, mathematical formulas and scientific theories to summarize God's work.
But to be "scientific", all of these models & theories must begin with confirmed data, and go where that evidence leads.
As soon as you begin with some other doctrine -- regardless of how divinely inspired it may or may-not have been -- you could well be right, but you are not being scientific.
To be scientific, you have to start with evidence, and not just those items which support your hoped-for results.
Of course you are guilty too!! But your conclusion is still Your opinion, and opinion Only!
I accept science Fact. I chose to interpret the evidence differently than you. You do not "own" science (the word or the discipline). Your claim that Creation Science (or your words religion) is not science, is only again opinion. God believing scientist choose to look for and find scientific evidence to prove their belief (or theory as you may call it) is as valid as your claims. As to the rest of your post, I would agree to most of it;
However: (you said)
"...As soon as you begin with some other doctrine -- regardless of how divinely inspired it may or may-not have been -- you could well be right, but you are not being scientific.
In this case? I'd rather be Right!! You can be scientific but still be wrong! (as per your point)
To be scientific, you have to start with evidence, and not just those items which support your hoped-for results. ..."
Those who ascribe to evolutional Bias will so interpret the data likewise. To say differently would be terrible dishonest.