Is science always unbiased

Answer 1

Certainly not. Most scientists start with a hypothesis they are trying to validate.

In relation to theories about origins scientists are quite open about their bias. According to evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin in the quote below presents the view typical of many if not most evolutionists:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its contructs, in spite of its faulire to fulfil many of its extravagent promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialsm is an absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door"

(Richard Lewontin, ''Billions and billions of demons'' , The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p.31.)

Thus, in this area there is a philosophical bias towards any materialistic explanation, regardless of where the evidence leads.

Evolutionary Paleontologist Dr Mary Schweitzer, who made a sensational series of discoveries of Dinosaur soft tissue in the 1990's had trouble getting her research published due to bias. Schweitzer stated that: "I had one reviewer tell me he didn't care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn't possible....I wrote back and said "Well, what data would convince you?" And he said "None." (Discover 27 (4): 37-41,77, April 2006.)