I doubt that many of those scientists would care to cast in the same light as evolutionists. After all, they can actually establish a degree of proof that evolution cannot, nor likely ever will even come close to establishing. To associate evolution with the high degree of credibility in mathematics and physics is an insult to those sciences.
Bull. I do quantum mechanics for a living. Evolution is every bit as credible as q.m. (both are 99+%)
What qualifications do you have to pronounce on the solidity of various branches of science?
When you come out with this stuff you just expose that you don't know anything about science. Wishing things about ToE because you have a religious aversion to it doesn't change the facts. I know lots of professional physicists, and I have never met one who thought that mainstream biology (in the form of ToE) was less well founded than their own speciality. If anything most physicists who have examined the data would say the opposite, that ToE is amongst the best founded of all human scientific knowledge.
Maths OTOH is qualitatively different from *all* the natural sciences, because it doesn't have to cope with the natural world so it can deal with concepts like "axioms" and "proofs". Natural sciences cannot do that. The real world is a messy place for both physicists and biologists; remarkable then that they come up with so many successful predictions and failed falsifications.