Please look up the term, "problems of induction". The 'all swans are white' argument is 'truth by induction' until you find a black swan. The problem with induction is that it relies on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. This does not help you.
"Underlying that process is a theory that propositions enmpirically supported by high correlation coefficients indicates the presence of physical law."
Again, induction is based on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. There is 'strong induction' (which is basically technology or operational science) and there is 'weak induction' (which is evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang). The fact that you have never seen a black swan does not make the statement "all swans are white" actually true although it qualifies as 'truth by induction'.
"In other words, Darwin's theory aobut evolution might someday be recognized and accepted as physical law."
IOW, Darwin's theory of evolution is more likely to be overturned as fallacy than to be proven as 'physical law'.
Do you see the problem yet?
Regarding your black/white swans, all it takes to disprove a theory is one contradiction.
Regarding physical law and correlation, all it takes to disprove a law is an absence of significant correlation in unbiased tests.
Correspondingly, good correlation is exactly what it takes to inductively show a theory correct.
It’s called the “Scientific Method.” Ref ... http://www.answers.com/topic/scientific-method
Let’s face it. The mountain of data supporting Darwin’s theory is now proving that theory.