I agree that presupposition, like the one taken in the study you cited, is biased but I don't see the same in research that supports evolution. There is no group of real scientists working to prove evolution, just like there is no group of real scientists working to disprove evolution. As I have mentioned many times in the past, that is not the way you do science. No one will fund you if you take that approach. Evolution is regarded correct because the sum of the evidence from experiments having nothing to do with evolution (gene regulation, genetic drift, point mutations, conserved regions of DNA, DNA packaging, DNA proofreading) point to it being a fact. The only bias you find is in groups trying to directly prove or disprove evolution and that is squarely in the camp of the intelligent design people. No one else cares. Having a young earth does not destroy science but some religious people believe that accepting the fact of evolution will somehow discredit God or invalidate his love for us. Scientist don't care what the results of an experiment are -- at least not the good ones. We are not invested in the emotion of discovery but in the facts. The fact of the matter is that peer review is the great equalizer. It takes away the emotion because your work is reviewed by folks who don't give a crap if you feel good or not about your data. They care that the data is correct and that your experiments actually say what you believe it says. Scientists who do not submit to peer review do so in all likelihood because they know the evidence can't survive careful evaluation. You seem to believe that we have discovery wrapped in emotion because, IMO, that is the "science" process you see going on around you in this attempt to defend the bible and God. Trust me -- God can defend himself.