Science requires the uniformity of nature

Is science possible at all if the future does not behave like the past? That is the question before us, and it would appear to be obvious to many that science does indeed require nature to behave in a uniform manner. However, my opponent approached me with a desire to be Con on this issue, so it is my duty to initiate the debate with a defense of the resolution.TermsScience - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Require - To have as a requisite; need. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Uniformity of Nature - A doctrine or principle of the invariability or regularity of nature; specifically one that holds identical antecedent states or causes to be uniformly followed by identical effects—called also principle of the uniformity of nature. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Induction - The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Nature - The material world and its phenomena. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)ArgumentHere is my argument in syllogism:1. Induction requires the future to behave like the past. (Necessary Precondition)2. Science is inductive. (Definition of Science)3. Therefore, Science requires the future to behave like the past. (From 1 & 2)4. Science studies nature. (Observable Fact)5. Therefore, Science requires that nature's future behaves like its past. (From 3 & 4)6. Therefore, Science requires the uniformity of nature (Definition of Uniformity of Nature)1. Induction requires the future to behave like the past.The principle of logical induction is that we can derive universal truths by observing particular truths. For example, we touch a fire once, burning ourselves, and inductively conclude that all fire is very hot. Said another way, fire is expected to be hot in the future based on our past experience with the hotness of fire. If induction did not expect the future to behave like the past, then we would have to check if fire was hot every time we encountered it. After all, this time it might be cold, or edible, or nurturing.The point is this: any time we derive a generality from one or more particular facts, we are in essence assuming that the future behaves like the past. If the future does not behave like the past, then there is no point in generalizing anything. There is no point to generalizing that fire is hot if tomorrow it might be cold, or edible, or nurturing. Therefore, the necessary precondition of induction is that the future will behave like the past.2. Science is inductive.Science is the process of observing then testing particular phenomena in controlled conditions in order to derive general truths about our reality. Science discovers how the universe operates by observing it operating in specific instances. Thus, science is inductive.3. Therefore, Science requires the future to behave like the past.If science is inductive and induction requires the future to behave like the past, then science also requires the future to behave like the past.4. Science studies nature.By nature, I mean our material existence as a whole, which also includes what we call the natural sciences, such as biology, botany, etc. Science is not in the position to study anything we cannot observe. We can only observe our cosmos, so science is limited in practice to the cosmos. Theorizing about metaphysics is certainly permitted, though such theorizing is still based on the generalities inductively discovered in our own universe.5. Therefore, Science requires that nature's future behaves like its past.If science studies nature and requires the future to behave like the past, then science requires nature to behave the same way. Thus, science requires nature's future to behave like its past.6. Therefore, Science requires the uniformity of natureThe uniformity of nature is the notion that nature's future will behave like its past. Since science requires nature's future to behave like its past, science therefore requires the uniformity of nature.ConclusionThe syllogism is logically sound. The resolution, "Science requires the uniformity of nature" is affirmed. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.