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.
Yep, and evolution has plenty of them. They are consistently 'explained away'. Like 'fossil reworking' to explain out-of-order fossils, 'unknown processes' to explain DNA preservation outside all known time frames, etc. This is how you know that evolution is fallacy-based and a philosophy. Contradictions don't disprove it.
"Regarding physical law and correlation, all it takes to disprove a law is an absence of significant correlation in unbiased tests."
Of course. 'Unbiased' being the operative term. They don't exist in a philosophically-based theory that is founded in fallacy. See above.
"Correspondingly, good correlation is exactly what it takes to inductively show a theory correct."
Nope, that's the theory of affirming the consequent. You need to learn that.
"It’s called the “Scientific Method.” Ref ... http://www.answers.com/topic/scientific-method"
Evolution has already been disproved according to the scientific method. What keeps it alive is fallacy and philosophical commitment to naturalism. Nothing more.
"Let’s face it. The mountain of data supporting Darwin’s theory is now proving that theory."
Let's face it. No contradictory evidence can ever disprove evolution. It is a theory grounded in fallacy and founded on the philosophy of naturalism (sweeping generalizations by believers notwithstanding).