Would you count Richard Dawkins as a strong candidate for objectivity in science?
Yes.
Does a atheistic bias necessarily make evolution theory incorrect?
No. Empirical evidence is the key. Evolution is not a product of atheism (indeed many religious people have no problem at all with evolution). Evolutionary theory is a product of emperical evidence. A theory borne of atheistic bias that was not supported by or even actually contradicted empirical evidence would not be valid.
The assertion that God
absolutely definitely does not exist would be such an assertion. No atheist I am aware of (incl Dawkins) makes this claim.
Does a theistic bias necessaruly make ID theory incorrect then?
A theory that assumes the existence of an entity for which there is no empirical evidence but which is somehow
known to exist and which then interprets all evidence with regard to this entity is incapable of objectivity and is thus invalid.
To be objective you must be skeptical. Things for which there is empirical evidence need to be empirically tested in order to be verified. Things for which there is no empirical evidence must be assumed not to exist.
Nature does not give a shit how we want it to be. It is as it is. By testing our theories against nature by means of prediction and verification we eliminate as much as possible our unavoidable biases. That is why the scientific method works.
Dawkins is as strong a proponent of the scientific method as anyone. You show me a IDist or creationist theory with a genuinely refutable prediction regarding new empirical evidence andI will show you a pig with big feathery wings.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.