I will prove B and disprove C in this post, because C was one of the most tempting contenders.
One of the main things to remember is that the discussion of philosophers of science "focus" on physics in the first paragraph is used to provide context for the determinist viewpoint in biology. As such, while there will no doubt be a question or questions regarding the philosophers of science in the first paragraph most of the questions and especially the main point question will be focused on the distinction between determinist and non-determinist biologists.
(B) This gets right at the heart of the difference between determinist and non-determinist biologists. In fact line 53-55 are a perfect summation of this passage, and this answer choice is almost synonymous with what is said in those lines.
(C) This answer choice is actually the reverse of what the passage states. The passage talks about how some evolutionary biologists have tried to construct science as a set of universal laws (determinists, lines 17-20) and recently some have tried to introduce historical contingency as an integral part of biology (lines 27-29) This answer choice tries to say that the determinists view has risen recently, when we are only told in the passage that the non-determinists view has risen recently. Also, we do not have any support from the passage about biologists "having long believed" that biology calls for a different theoretical approach then physics.