What? Every experimental test of dark energy and dark matter has come up empty so far. Dark energy and dark matter are one possible explanation of the actual observations that you have referenced. Possible. The prevailing theory did not explain these observations and so in the course of trying to modify that theory, a number of additional theoretical entities were added to explain the anomalous observations.

Don't put the horse before the cart please. Observations are first, not theories. The development of theories is dependent on the observations and the predictions those theories give rise to experiments to test the veracity of the theory in question.

Your comments about my response regarding "black holes" and "big bang" miss the anomaly between the two concepts. You are replying in a theoretical sense not in any actual experimental sense.

What I find interesting is that you ask the question of why the universe hasn't collapsed, when it should be why did singularity from the theory ever explode?

Yes, what is it that holds the universe as it is? Your obvious answer is a continuation of the "big bang" model, but is that model actually valid? I don't believe it is, nor do I believe that gravity is the prevailing force that the model suggests. The reason for not thinking so is related to the underlying basis for the model that the universe is electrically neutral. Since that is incorrect, too many plasmas occurring all over the place, we must look at including electromagnetic effects within the models we develop. If we ignore these effects, which is what occurs in the prevailing theory, then additional other entities must be added to explain the actual observations made.

You ask the question of why don't galaxies collapse into black holes. Well, the simple answer may be that there are no "black holes" because the theoretical entity cannot exist in the universe. Does that in turn mean that there are no large gravitational bodies? No, but it does mean that what people are calling "black holes" are, in fact, not "black holes" but some other body for which our models have not yet found an effective theoretical base. Remember that "black holes" have very specific properties in theory, one of them being a singularity and the other an event horizon at which time has stopped as seen from outside the event horizon.

You miss the religious reference. I am not referring to men and women who believe in God, a god or gods and accept the theory or model. But I am referring to those who have turned science itself into a religion, or more the point, have turned the belief in the theory/model into a religion. That is a major concern and should be addressed.

Why would I challenge the observations? What I am challenging, if you like, is the interpretation of those observations. The observations stand and fall by precision by which they are made.

The simple point is that too many of the observations indicate that the basis for the model theory is not only incomplete but wrong. As I said above, the theory depends on an electrically neutral universe so that the only force of any consequence is gravity. The universe is too big for the time since the "big bang" so a unknown, unknowable process called inflation has had to be incorporated, movements with a galaxy are doing things that are not according to what the theory says they should so then "dark matter" had to be incorporated into the model, and then movement between galaxies wasn't occurring in the manner predicted, so "dark energy" was added.

Now for the last twenty years or so, no experiment devised to find "dark matter" or "dark energy" has found either of those entities. Hence, there is a significant possibility that they don't exist.

Mayhaps, the model is wrong and there needs to be a revisiting of the observations to see if some alternate theory might have more success. Is this occurring? Not that I can see. If anything, it appears that those who believe in the theory are doubling down and doing everything to justify their theory.

This is supposed to be science, you know, that process by which we systematically observe the universe around and try to develop viable theories that help us understand what we are seeing. If a model doesn't work, we are allowed to throw it out, you know. If we can't do that and look for better explanations, then what are we doing?

I have been wrong about many things during my lifetime and when I have been shown that, I give up the old and take up the new. This was a fundamental part of my science and engineering education.

Let me put something to you, I am not hung up on any particular model as being the "right" model. If the theory/model in question has problems explaining some observations, it just means that there is a better explanation, we just haven't worked it out yet.

My personal belief is that God (personal Christian Trinity) created the universe and that He takes great delight in us learning about His creation and how it works. It works according to the rules He has put in place and it is up to us to investigate and find out those rules, laws, etc.

What you believe is up to you. If you don't believe that there is a creator then you also have to come up with a reason for why the rules are precisely as they are.

Irrespective of the cause of the universe and what you believe about that, we need to be capable of modifying and/or dropping theories that no longer match what we see.

You can consider me ignorant if you wish, but I think I have a greater wonder about the universe than you do. It is for exploring and there are ever more complexities than our simplistic theories will ever uncover. That is the fun part.