I took his point to be the Kuhnian observation that the paradigm in which science is operating determines the questions that one finds relevant to ask. I suppose we can quibble about whether that consists of bias or not, but I think Kuhn's point was valid. What's more, I think it's self sustaining to a degree as well. My impression is that it's considerably harder to get funding to pay for research that challenges the current paradigm, whatever the field. (If someone with real world experience on this matter wants to correct my impression, I certainly wouldn't argue with them.) And arguably this operates as a type of bias as well.
I think the important point to make as far as Kuhnian paradigms and biology go, is that creationism had its day in the sun as the reigning paradigm, but was overthrown by Darwinian evolution.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
™ Version 4.2
