>* 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
The complexity and variety of life on this planet.
>* 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
Life had a creator and designer.
>* 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
It was a one time event. Life does not arise spontaneously from inert materials. One species does not transform into another or multiple other species.
* 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
This is where it becomes inductive - demonstrate that the hypothesis is not true. Produce life from inert materials or show that one species definitely turned into another - i.e. produce the transitional forms. Obviously we can't recreate the Big Bang or any of the physical laws that existed just before the Big Bang - but some people accept it as a theory. Actually, its a theory based on a theory, but certainly nothing more than that.
>* 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
This is required for a law, not a theory. This is why Relativity remains a theory, and evolution is not a law.
Don't you read the news? This has already been shown to be done many times in a lab.
Are you going to admit you are wrong or keep blustering about your ignorance?
Actually, it's not. All it establishes is that you don't know what either a theory or a Law is and prefer to argue from ignorance. That's curable, but only if you want to cure it.