No Legion. The theory of evolution is DEDUCTIVE and INDUCTIVE reasoning backed by tested hypothesis.
Inductive reasoning differs little from abductive except in that it incorporates specifically academic notions such as hypotheses. It was invented/coined to do so.
The historicity of Jesus is ABDUCTIVE reasoning that unlike deductive and inductive reasoning is not conclusive - it is guesswork.
Deductive reasoning can easily show that Jesus exists. That's because deductive reasoning depends upon the axioms and/or inference rules in question or more informally the assumptions used. The reason it is generally useless in any research is because it depends upon complete knowledge of the system in question (such as in the use of predicate calculi, Boolean algebra, vector arithmetic, etc.). However, the axioms need not be based on any evidence. Thus one can create a set of axioms and inference rules that prove deductively Jesus was god. It's quite simple, actually. Here's a deductive argument:
1) All gospels prove Jesus existed |Assumption
2) If gMark is a gospel, then gMark proves Jesus existed | formally equivalent to 1
3) gMark is a gospel | historical evidence
Conclusion: Jesus existed
There are infinitely-many deductive arguments that are just as pointless, useless, meaningless, and stupid that nonetheless prove Jesus is historical. That's because
any and all reasoning can lead to conclusions. Also, logically (or formally)
reasoning describes the methods by which one can apply inference rules given certain axioms and assumptions. This is why, regardless of argument type, logicians and mathematicians distinguish between "validity" and "soundness".
Deductive reasoning is not guesswork
That's because the guesses are assumed beforehand. This is again related to Gödel's incompleteness proof(s), which demonstrates that we have to rely on assumptions in order to rely on the validity of any and all derivations (reasoning which leads to a conclusion). Deductive reasoning is best exemplified by predicate calculus or basic algebra. In formal logic, the following deductive argument is absolutely true:
If English is a language, then Jesus is god. English is a language. Ergo, Jesus is god.
The problem is that like all deductive arguments the above stands and falls on the assumptions underlying both the argument and the method of inference.
and for scientific theories like the ToE those deductions, inferences and guesses have been formed into TESTABLE hypothesis.
Do you have any idea at all how hypotheses are tested in the sciences and the ways in which this is related to formal (or informal, for that matter) reasoning, logic, or any epistemological method(s)?
Only when falsifyable hypothesis have been tested for many decades did the ToE graduate to the ultimate status of Theory.
There is not one evolutionary theory, but many. There are entire field in the sciences (such as evolutionary psychology) which rest on the assumption that particular models of evolution are true. The ways in which hypotheses are falsified depend upon multiple theories, which is why most (if not all) fields in science have contradicting theories.
So the ToE represents testable, falsifyable hypothesis over a century or so.
It doesn't. First, because there is no single hypothesis that was ever tested to confirm evolutionary theory. Second, because there is no singular ToE. Third, because your Popperian, border-line positivism grade-school "scientific method" is "over a century of so" outdated.