By the 1960's it became apparent that some bacterial pathogens were developing resistance to antibiotic-after-antibiotic, at a rate faster than new antibiotics could be brought to market. A more conservative approach to the use of antibiotics has not been fully accepted by the medical and agricultural communities, and the problems of emerging multiple-drug resistant pathogens still loom.
You need to read it more carefully. It does not blame the "whole community", it says that it has not been "fully accepted", meaning that some subset of the whole is resisting a more careful use of antibiotics. Guess which subgroup is more likely to deny the problems of forcing pathogens to evolve?
Dini appears to be stating his prejudicial imaginings as fact: "It is hard to imagine how this can be so, but it is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make bad clinical decisions. The current crisis in antibiotic resistance is the result of such decisions"....
No, he's absolutely correct. I've met anti-evolutionists, including a Freeper on a recent thread, who flatly denied (he termed it "absolute garbage") the well-established fact that bacteria mutate and evolve resistances to antibiotics (and demonstrating this is done on a regular basis in simple lab experiments). He denied it apparently simply on the grounds that, he believed, even such "microevolution" is impossible, and therefore any resistant bacteria had to be present in the original sample (even though the aforementioned lab experiments flatly disprove this).
A dogmatic anti-evolutionary stance is an anti-scientific stance -- it's the mark of a person who allows his faith-based (not necessarily religious) beliefs to override his ability to accept (and to outright deny) experimental findings and well-established evidence.
There's nothing wrong with being religious and a scientist -- many are. But there *is* something wrong with a person whose faith motivates him into an anti-scientific mindset, and then attempts a career in one of the sciences. It's rather like an atheist trying to be a priest. Either way, their heart and mind are not of the right perspective to do the job properly.
Thankfully, most religious people who go into science have a positive attitude about and understanding of science, and they do fine work. That's not what is being discussed here. But unfortunately there's a small subset of the faithful who become real cranks on the subjects of geology or evolution or other types of science, and are unable to accept the fundamental principles of those fields. The point is that such people are not suited for careers in the sciences which involve those fields.