People majoring in science typically take the mathematics courses that are most relevant to their discipline. Most biological functions that I am familiar with can be described by a logarithmic/exponential function, and I am completely capable of deriving equations as I need them. The only benefit to having taken calculus is that I can follow equations in discussions of biophysics. In any case, I believe I adequately refuted the assertion that life sciences are completely devoid of mathematics, even if my math background did not prepare me for a career in aerospatial engineering.
The ability to plug data into spread sheets or programs for statistical analysis does not qualify a person as having an understanding of higher mathematics. That doesn't cut it.
In practice, you have to understand the mathmatics before you can plug the numbers into Excel or SPSS. Otherwise, you can plug numbers in all day, but you'll never know whether your results are valid or even close to plausible. I should mention that during the time I shared an office with a statistician, I never once (in several years) saw her calculate statistical functions by hand. She always plugged the numbers into some program (usually SPSS).
If I recall, it was evolutionist Julian Huxley that pointed out that evolution theory had a huge flaw from a purely probabilistic viewpoint, though he remained a believer. Others have added to and reinforced his work.
The "probabilistic flaw" is only an artifact resulting from the assumption that the "endpoint" was the intended goal of evolution all along. When you consider it from a more scientific point of view--that any species can fill a particular niche as long as it has certain characteristics, then the evolution of a species to fill a niche is almost inevitable. For evolution to occur, it is only necessary for DNA to mutate, for the DNA repair systems to fail to repair the DNA, and for the mutation to be neutral or to confer an advantage. These events happen rather frequently.
Everything except logic apparently, which is the most valuable thing you'd get as a math major. A firm grasp of logic is generally enough to prevent people from becoming evolosers.
Evolution study/theory is really a subset of genetics and genome mapping which is arguably pure mathematics.
Bull! I have written programs and designed spreadsheets that perform massively complex analysis and it takes no more than about 20 minutes to teach people how use them, and these were business people. All they had to know is what data belonged where and few simple rules for data integrity testing. It is nothing but minor league math. I've written programs for engineers and it made no difference whether they knew the math or not as long as I did. They too required very minimal training to use the software. Using that software does not make anyone more or less competent in mathematics. Exponential decay and growth functions can be looked in up in a math textbook. That's no big deal.
The "probabilistic flaw" is only an artifact resulting from the assumption that the "endpoint" was the intended goal of evolution all along.
Wrong again! No such assumption was necessary. The endpoint is what it is, no different than calculating the number of dice rolls to get a 7, 8, 9 or any other number I want to test as an endpoint. There is no goal, just a result and how long it might take to get it.