Yes, the burden of proof is on the new idea (evo) and the more elaborate explanation (evo). It makes sense that the theory necessarily must evolve into a fact to silence those who demand proof. I thought facts needed proof but I guess they don't.
BR is now arguing with the science text books. His greatest defense of evoultion is by using semantics and plays on words. Somehow he believes that if evolution is a theory it doesn't need to be proved. If that were true, then what is all the lab equipment for in schools and research facilities. NIH could be reduced to office space and they could just hand out theoretical cures to all the patients. The patients would have to be better so long as no one proved the theoretical drugs to be false. Truly a brave new world.
Regards,
Boiler Plate