It is not. Try to understand the difference between induction, which science operates with, and deduction, which abstract formal systems operate with. A deductive demonstration from formally accepted axioms and postulates is a proof, and is more or less incontroveratable within its formal framework.
An argument from induction isn't in the least incontrovertable. It is a statement that we have faith that what happened before, will happen again. Which we believe until the day it doesn't work, and then we find some other, more comprehensive statement. This is how science works. Attacks on biological science that don't account for this, are like peeing to windward to stop a ship from moving.
Well, not quite. Formulation of hypotheses possibly - in that induction is observing A leads to B and making the prediction that A will lead to B again. Using a theory to say A always leads to B therefor if A occurs, B must occur, is the essence of deductive reasoning. If anything, inductive reasoning leads to the formation of theories, which leads to deductive reasoning based upon theory - gravity or evolution.
An argument from induction isn't in the least incontrovertable. It is a statement that we have faith that what happened before, will happen again. Which we believe until the day it doesn't work, and then we find some other, more comprehensive statement. This is how science works
Not really. The method of experimentation and observation do have an inductive quality. If I kick a ball up, it should come down because yesterday, I kicked a ball and it came down..
But once theories are used to explain - Law of gravity holds that in a gravity field, what goes "up" must come "down." So a ball kicked up will always come down. This is an application of deductive reasoning.
Science involves both.