We are not discussing whether or not an intelligent designer exists; but, the burden would be on the one making that claim if we were.
You are reading an explanation on the key difference between an unbiased and a biased approach to science and why the Yacub myth is not equal to scientific inquiry. Also, try not to confuse inductive reasoning with belief. One is open to change the other is resistant and seeks only to feed its bias.
Any myth taken as "true" simply because it was stated is unfounded.
Ah I was wondering when the "burden of proof" would show up. For the record..intelligent design was your language...not mine (as I noted) and I dont see it as appropriate in this particular discussion as there are already several issues being conflated. Of course, there's also the issue on what constitutes proof with respect to a particular field. They are not the same nor universal across disciplines...which again leads to the construction of models and what data they can yield (ie what they tell you explicitly dont)
I don't plan on going back and forth on this...but the truth is that this has been addressed early in this thread. I am very familiar with inductive reasoning and proof by induction techniques. Of course even in areas that make heavy use of such does not make them immune bias or defensiveness on the basis of belief (conviction).