Who are you speaking of? Jim Stump? He’s head of the moderation team and maybe of some other activities, not the head of BioLogos. BioLogos on the whole has never been a very philosophical place.
Yet confirmation bias has run rampant there. They would quote the same two passages of of Augustine and Calvin endlessly, to show that the Bible was compatible with modern science, while ignoring other passages of Augustine and Calvin which decidedly did not fit into the modern scientific way of looking at origins. They would cite one passage from Augustine and unspecified passages of Origen and generalize that to “the Fathers interpreted Genesis non-literally”, when in fact most of the Fathers, even Augustine most of the time and even Origen on a number of points, actually interpreted Genesis quite literally. They wanted to believe that all or most of the Fathers read Genesis non-literally, so they closed their eyes to passages that said the opposite, and in most cases didn’t even do any research to find out what the various Fathers wrote about Genesis.
Yet we were told over and over again by the scientists posting comments on BioLogos that the scientist’s duty is to try to falsify his own hypothesis. There certainly wasn’t any effort by BioLogos columnists or management to falsify the hypothesis: “Most Church Fathers read Genesis non-literally” – because the falsification of the hypothesis would make the apologetics of BioLogos harder.
The point is that confirmation bias comes whenever someone is so eager to hold onto a view that they don’t examine the evidence on all sides. And that’s not caused by philosophy. Indeed, of all the subjects studied in university, philosophy is the one most likely to uncover confirmation bias – when philosophy is taught in the classical Socratic way.