Ah, but Wikipedia is biased towards evolutionary theory and atheism because the vast majority of people hold to the former and many to the latter. Even bible history is talked about as nothing more than myth or good stories.
If something is biased because it disagrees with you, then how can you possibly find an unbiased source?
I wouldn't say that the vast majority of "people" hold to evolutionary theory. According to
Pew polls in 2009, only 54% of the American public believed in evolution, and that's only if you factor in the 22% of Americans that believe God guided it. The vast majority of scientists certainly believe evolution is true, and they are the ones that write the vast majority of peer-reviewed literature on the subject. That's why any non-religious text is going to be biased towards evolution.
The reason that bible history is spoken of as myth is due to methodological naturalism. We assume that, if it isn't known to happen in the present, it probably didn't happen in the past. And by "we", I mean you and I -- you don't take the myths of any other religion seriously, only your own. If you hear about a supernatural event in another culture's history, you are just as likely as I am to immediately assume that it came from the imagination of that culture. Should Wikipedia discuss the Greek myths as if they were probably true, but we're simply lacking the evidence?
You have to get your information with as little bias as possible if you want it to be accurate. Just because the information isn't biased in your favor doesn't mean it's biased against it.