On an incredibly banal level... yes? We're humans. We make predictions about sport, politics, the weather and so on, like everyone else.

What I think you are asking though is whether, as historians, we are equipped to try and predict the future with more accuracy than other people. Does historical practice cover methods and theories by which the future might be accurately predicted?

Certain ways of historical thinking do lend themselves to this kind of prediction, either implicitly or explicitly. Perhaps most famously, Marx's view of history was predictive, in a broad sense at least. Marx identified what he saw as the structural forces driving human development (ie historical materialism and resulting class conflict), and held that they would inevitably lead from feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism and communism in turn. This view of history is rooted in the belief that human ideals and agency are not what shape history, rather than history is the product of large, structural economic developments and their consequences. As such, in a broad view at least, Marx claimed to be able to predict the future of humanity. Needless to say, it remains at best unclear as to how correct he was in his predictions.

Other forms of historical predictions are less overt. The so-called 'Whig' view of history, that humanity is slowly but surely improving itself over time, implicitly subscribes to the notion that this sense of human 'progress' will continue indefinitely, with technology, morality, political systems and institutions always evolving and becoming gradually better over time. This kind of thinking was particularly prominent in British historiography up until about the mid-20th century, but has echoes elsewhere as well. These days, it is heavily criticised by most historians because it is inherent teleological - that is, it takes the known endpoint (or 'current point') of human history as inevitable, with no deviation or contingency possible. Human history has an inevitable path to walk down, and we're all just along for the ride. But once you study the past in enough detail, you come to realise just how untenable such a view is - outcomes are almost always a product of circumstances, contingency and (often enough) happenstance.

This hints I think at some of the reasons why historians don't make predictions (professionally at least): we're all too aware of the importance of complexity and contingency in understanding the past. Unless we're diehard Marxists, we don't tend to discount the importance of human ideas, agency and culture. This in turn means that historical developments are always going to defy precise prediction - the past, present and future are far too complex to understand all the implications. Creating any sort of usable model that might use the past to predict the future requires a massive degree of simplification to be workable, yet that very process of simplification renders any predictions uncertain at best. It's hard enough to do in the context of bounded, rules-based systems (like the stock market), let alone trying to do it for an entire human society. As a result, we are not trained or suited towards predicting the future in a methodologically rigourous or scientific manner.