Objectivity is a cornerstone of science. Bias can erode objectivity when unwittingly introduced into the reporting and teaching of discoveries and theories. This is evident in articles and books on evolution today and may contribute to difficulties in the acceptance of evolution by many supporters of intelligent design. Science has not yet developed to the point of being able to assign purpose to activities in the natural world. In fact, it may never develop to that level. Yet purpose is often implied in descriptions of DNA replication, and this introduces bias. Scientists generally agree that there is no purpose in evolution. The evolutionary process moves along as a result of interactions among and between components of various levels of organization: populations, organisms, molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles and waves. If purpose does exist, its discovery is outside the realm of science at this time. Describing the production of a mutation, such as a DNA strand with a base sequence not complementary to the template strand at each base point, as an “error” or “mistake” unwittingly ascribes purpose to the process. It introduces the assumption that a new strand is “supposed” to be complementary to the template strand at each base point. Such a biased assumption is outside the realm of science. One could just as easily assume that a new complementary strand is not supposed to be an exact complement, but rather a source of variation. This assumption is also outside the realm of science. Base-pairing during replication occurs as a result of natural attractions and repulsions between partially charged components of the bases. This is true if the new strand becomes an inexact complement just as much as it is true if the new strand becomes an exact complement. An inexact complement should not be considered a “mistake.” This may appear trivial at first glance, because scientists often communicate among themselves informally, using purposeful language while not intending a literal interpretation (e.g., elements try to achieve an outer octet of electrons). The danger lies, however, in the use of such informal language in articles and books intended for nonscientists, including textbooks used in high schools and colleges. When mutations are not presented as natural phenomena, but rather as “mistakes,” it becomes difficult for a nonscientist to view them objectively. Many supporters of intelligent design find discomfort in the concept that humans have evolved as a result of “mistakes.” Although it is not an obligation of scientists to address discomfort in concepts, it is an obligation of scientists to present findings in an objective, scientific manner. Presenting mutations as “mistakes” should not be avoided due to any discomfort that may occur. Presenting mutations as “mistakes” should be avoided simply because such a presentation does unwittingly introduce purpose, and hence bias, to the concept. People being presented with the case for evolution should be allowed to evaluate objective arguments, without having first to overcome what they may consider a negative bias, when that bias should not have been introduced in the first place.