That's actually one of the primary reasons I've pursued mathematics as my field of interest. I love science, but that tiny nagging "maybe" is always there. Mathematics attempts to be more "absolute" in the fact that we define our assumptions, and from there develop our facts, principles, and proofs.

Not sure if you've read any Popper, Kuhn, etc., but there's no reason to place mathematics 'outside' of the sciences, other than their degree of certainty is probabilistically higher. There have been a number of times in history when mathematical proofs have been incorrect because the prover could not account for all possible situations, due to an incomplete understanding of scope, etc.

It's less fallible than, say, even quantum mechanics (*), but certainly not infallible, and not a distinct group. Nonetheless, I would support you in laughing at anyone who asks if you "believe in Gödel's incompleteness theorem". (As an aside, if you're interested in both math and evolution, check out I Am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter.)

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

(*): I pick this because it's amazing how well quantum mechanics has done, given its relatively non-intuitive laws. They've made predictions based on theory where it took decades to build the equipment needed to make the measurement (thinking of the electron magnetic moment), and the predictions worked to better than 1 in 10¹², with the error more likely to be in the equipment.