Now let me tell me why you are fooling yourself if you believe there is any such thing as an unbiased source or neutral ground in the origins argument.
Microbes-to-man evolution is the all-natural Just-so story intended to supplant the idea of supernatural causation. You cannot add dashes of supernatural agency to a framework meant to explain the universe without God’s agency without being arbitrary. It’s a complete contradiction to say God created via a process meant to explain the universe without need for Him.
If we interpret Genesis (and related passages in the OT and NT) according to man’s fallible, finite knowledge (especially when the Bible and a survey of religious beliefs within the scientific consensus reveal that their minds are at enmity against God [Romans 8:7] and they are suppressing the truth of the Creator in unrighteousness [Romans 1:18]), you are saying that man – not God’s revealed Word – is the ultimate authority; you are saying that we do, in fact, follow cleverly devised fables [2 Peter 1:16] when it comes to our origins; and you’re saying that some portions of the Bible dealing with our origins are not God-breathed [2 Timothy 3:16] since they came by the will of man [2 Peter 1:21]. This in turn is a refutation of the claim in the Psalms that the Word of God is true from the beginning [Psalm 119:160] for you’ve denied some portions of it in favor of the all-natural interpretations of man. Since Jesus affirmed that God made humanity male and female from the beginning [Mark 10:6] – not hundreds of millions of years after the beginning, and spoke of the worldwide Flood as a historical event [Luke 17:27], you’ve stated that Christ was in error; since God cannot lie, you’ve negated the possibility that Jesus was God [Numbers 23:19], which the Bible affirms contrary to your notion [John 1:1, 3, 14]. If Jesus was not God, He could not have been a substitutionary sacrifice for all of humanity [Hebrews 1:3; 7:27; Romans 5:6] and we are still in our sins [Romans 4:25].
On the other hand, if God actually created the universe as the Bible states then any theory or framework based on the idea that the universe should be explained by all-natural causation is necessarily wrong where it contradicts supernatural [Biblical] revelation to the contrary. This would include the Big bang, microbes-to-man evolution, the evolution of man from ape-like creatures and local flood models.
Someone who attempts to compromise between supernatural agency and all-natural causation does so arbitrarily, for he cannot consistently refer to either the word of men committed to science via naturalism or the Bible as His ultimate authority. He has in effect set himself up as the ultimate authority over the scientific consensus based on naturalism and the Bible itself, picking and choosing what portions of each he will believe. But this is, again, neither consistent with a Biblical worldview or naturalism, and since either proposition is exclusive of the other, there is no reason to hold the compromiser’s opinion as our ultimate authority either since his worldview is arbitrary and inconsistent.
…so tell me again how on would find an unbiased source on the origins argument?
The evolutionist, the Biblicist and the compromise advocate are each biased in favor of their model. The insistence that there exists neutral ground is both logically untenable and, well, unBiblical [truth is diametrically opposed to error, as affirmed by both the logical law of noncontradiction and several Biblical passages I could cite]; furthermore, the Bible makes it clear that he who is not with God is against Him [Luke 11:23] – there is no neutral ground; therefore, there are no sources that are unbiased where it concerns Biblical revelation and authority on any subject, including the origins argument.