It's also worth noting that the people who generally tend to be anti-science in America are typically not anti-law-of-gravitation or anti-atomic-theory-of-matter types.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principl...
Another way to state the point I was attempting to make: while modern physicists can derive many new insights from ages old equations (or manipulations thereof), Newton was tasked with creating the equations from scientific first-principles. It is this skill (the ability to formulate scientific frameworks) which would be lost if scientific education is neglected.
The advancement of biology is driven by the development of algorithms and equations and to suggest that it is somehow less dependent on them than other branches of science does it a disservice.
My guess would be that most "equations" in biology curriculum are not really related to biological or physical processes directly, but rather to statistics, experimental setup, i.e. data interpretation and manipulation.
Now, of course, stats are very important and are probably basic knowledge is key in reading and critically analyzing any scientific paper. So I am not criticizing that. However my opinion is that mathematics is not as critical to biology as it is critical for physics.
Any real advance in biology will require a well written paper for example. Also, if the person wanted to have access to the best minds, they will need to be accepted in to a good school at a minimum.
Math and English are great places to focus as amazing building blocks.