Inductive reasoning works reliably in mathematics and formal logic, and literally nowhere else. So, if you have a mathematical model of physics, you can use inductive reasoning on that model, but the universe is under no obligation to obey your model.
In fact, we have found our models to be violated by nature over and over, countless thousands of times. Quantum field theory and General Relativity arose specifically to address exactly such violations of older models. Nobody has found violations of either (unless it finally turns out there isn't actually dark matter).
Dark energy and its lack happen to be both consistent with GR. GR and QFT are not consistent with one another, so one or both will need to give, but each has thus far passed every actual test.
You may insist that red shift is not caused by universal expansion, but then you need another explanation for it, consistent with observations. Discomfort is not such an explanation.
Despite the wonderfully dismissive tone of your post, it seems like you don't know what the term 'inductive reasoning' means.
> Inductive reasoning works reliably in mathematics
Mathematics does not use inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is not logically valid. Perhaps you have confused 'inductive reasoning' with 'the method of induction'. While there are some shared root words they are not related concepts. 'The method of induction' uses deductive reasoning, as does every mathematical proof. There are no exceptions to this, see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-nondeductive/ . Mathematicians might look at examples or write computer programs to explore a problem, but when it comes time to write a proof there is no such thing as a non-deductive proof.
> In fact, we have found our models to be violated by nature over and over,
This doesn't even disagree with anything I have said.
> You may insist that red shift is not caused by universal expansion
I'm not insisting that red shift is not caused by universal expansion. I'm insisting that expansion, if it exists, violates the conservation of energy. The conservation of energy is extremely well established in that we can't find exceptions to it locally. Meanwhile expansion is extremely hard to study, and relies on connecting long chains of measurements for which we cannot reliably estimate the accuracy of.
I simply think that it is more likely, as a matter of prognostication, that it will turn out the distance ladder has significant corrections or that one of the basic assumptions underlining expansion (for example that the universe is homogeneous or isotropic outside of the visible universe) ends up being overturned.
In fact, we have found our models to be violated by nature over and over, countless thousands of times. Quantum field theory and General Relativity arose specifically to address exactly such violations of older models. Nobody has found violations of either (unless it finally turns out there isn't actually dark matter).
Dark energy and its lack happen to be both consistent with GR. GR and QFT are not consistent with one another, so one or both will need to give, but each has thus far passed every actual test.
You may insist that red shift is not caused by universal expansion, but then you need another explanation for it, consistent with observations. Discomfort is not such an explanation.
Your religion is not fun.