I would argue that biology without equations is just as useless as physics or chemistry without them. Yes, its interesting to know about evolution and how cells work, but to interact with a cell or guide evolution in any meaningful way you need to know the equations that describe flux over a membrane or evolutionary equilibrium. Just like its interesting to know the order of the planets and that rubbing a balloon against your head will make your hair stand up but if you actually want to send something to space or use electricity you need to add the equations.
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.
I disagree if you mean "usage" to be "direct usage".
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.
Not "less dependent on them", rather state it: "fewer of them to be serviced by". I am the first to suggest that biology needs many more equations than it currently has. But deriving those equations will not come from studying math, but rather from studying science.
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.