"I mean, one scientist submits his findings to other biased scientists who are also in his discipline, and they pat him on the back and say "this is all legit.""
That's not what tends to happen. Just as many times, they tear the paper to shreds.
"This is especially true when the majority of the reviewing scientists believe in evolution."
Enough data has been collected over the last several decades to a century that this is no longer in question. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution works. If you can come up with a theory of greater explanatory power that is better at making predictions (note: anything that invokes magic doesn't have explanatory or predictive power), it can certainly replace evolution, of course.
Acknowledgement of evolution is no longer at the stage of "bias".
"What would happen if scientists submitted their findings for review by people who did not share their bias?"
The only "shared bias" in a large enough group of scientists (i.e. large enough so that a majority won't be direct colleagues) is that the scientific method works.
"For instance, if papers on evolution went before a committee of Christian reviewers for comment?"
Many scientists in the US -are- Christians.
"Then we could provide the opposing view point and challenge the scientists to back up their claims with better data."
They'd almost certainly not have enough statistics background to understand the math behind the data.
And if they did, once additional data inevitably supported evolution, the "review committee" would put their hands over their ears.
