Some evolutionists are in fact epistemologists - Dan Dennett, for one.
The empirical natural sciences can present experiments in which certain actions are observed. Thus in chemistry I can observe the result of combining two elements, in physics I can observe the laws of thermodynamics, in biology I can observe the functions of the various organs, etc. This observation is just not possible with evolution. The conclusions of natural evolution are the result of inductive reasoning and do not have the same logical validity as deductive reasoning.
Not true. One can, for example, sequence the genomes of various organisms, show to a high degree of probability that these genes had a common ancestor, and even deduce what the gene sequence of that common ancestor was. And note I said 'deduce'.
Besides, all science is based to an extent on inductive reasoning. Only someone ignorant of science would claim otherwise. For example, when we chemists synthesize a natural product, we use chemical reactions that have been checked out on similar systems, but not as part of that particular synthesis. Inferring that if it works on similar systems, it will work on that system, is pure induction.
The evolutionists should remember this limitation when presenting their conclusions which in fact are no more than conjectures
What fascinates me most about evolution is that people who are radically ignorant about it or indeed about science as a whole nonetheless seem to feel entitled to have their uninformed opinions taken seriously.
If you recheck my post you will find that I never claimed that inductive reasoning was unscientific, only that inductive reasoning does not have the same validity as deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is indeed proper (and necessary) in science; it just does not lead to conclusions with the same confidence as deductive reasoning or direct empirical observation. Nor should you take umbrage with my characterization of the conclusions of natural evolution as conjecture. This is not meant as a pejorative but as a recognition of limits of the study. Indeed, as I am sure you would agree, the proper use of conjecture is necessary in science. I also want to note that I never said the natural evolution was false (I believe that the premise is unprovable either way), only that is should not cloak its conclusions with the same confidence as the empirical sciences.