Logical Approach to Scientific Theories/Laws

Yes, it is affirming the consequent under deduction, but under induction it's not and that point was whether we can accept any form of induction in science

The only form I can recall about induction that resembles "affirming the consequence" would be causal inference. Not only is that just one side of the Rubilk's Cube, it is also explicitly required that additional factors be confirmed to establish the exact form of the causal relationship. Wet -> Rain is simply absurd.
Not only are you saying Inductive reasoning IS causal inference, you're also doing it wrong.

The most intuitive forms of inductive reasoning would be generalization and future prediction, which are, yes, arguably reliable. Be reminded, though, that being logical is entirely different from being right.
Philosophers argue there aren't even truths. But then, how can they even be right?