As a bioinformatician, while I largely agree with you, it's worth nothing that it's not that biologists are math-phobic or bigoted about the value of numbers -

As a bioinformatician, while I largely agree with you, it's worth nothing that it's not that biologists are math-phobic or bigoted about the value of numbers - it's that biology has undergone the most radical changes in recent years of any of the primary sciences. A helpful metric (perhaps apocryphal) that I heard at a talk is that the total amount of knowledge in the sciences doubles about every 10 years, in biology every five, and in genetics every two years. Most biologists working today were trained before the genomics revolution, and have not developed the mental heuristics around it. In comparison to today, the genetics of 25 years ago feels practically paleolithic, and it's a comparison this stark is hard to find in any of the other sciences. Genomics in the early years was also an unregulated Wild West, with lots of speculative studies and predictions that never panned out. The field matured rapidly, but as a consequence experimentalists are vary of "predictions". For example, despite intense scrutiny, about a third of E. coli genes remain uncharacterised, and we don't even know if they're really genes, or an artefact of the gene prediction process. As a bioinformatician, the barrier to entry for predictions is quite low, and experimentalists are understandably cautious. It's also a case of moving goalposts - they get used to and begin to accept computational predictions from one domain, and meanwhile whole new fields of computational biology have opened up. It'll take a while for them to accept them.