Maybe that's because you're taking an inherently anti-scientific perspective, rather than engaging with evidence.

Their citations 8, 9, and 10 explain why the oversimplification of "no biological basis of race" is an oversimplification. If you had a counterargument, that would be one thing, but you're just repeating a phrase in response to their dissection of the research behind phrases like that.

An algorithm is just a way for computers to do things. They are not themselves intrinsically harmful or helpful any more than mathematics is intrinsically harmful or helpful. It depends how you use it. Therefore, that there are some algorithms that lead to harmful outcomes does not mean that algorithms are bad, just that you want the right ones--and note also that the account you posted was speculative regarding the creatinine concentration disparity actually being problematic.

Furthermore, the authors provide several examples (citations 26-31) of how the approach they advocate is helpful.

And the authors freely and fully admit that they would rather not use race as a proxy for genetic differences: "The ultimate goal, we believe, would be to replace race with genetic ancestry in an evidence-based manner. But we have not yet reached a point where genetic-ancestry data are readily available in routine care or where clinicians know what to do with these data."

They simply argue that for now it is of positive value for the health of black people.