My problem with Dark matter isn't the Novelty. I love Novelty. Its just that it is too much like Aether, photonic ether, Phlogistone, Imps, Vitalism, cartesian Demons, Divine Cause etc- and my objections don't really relate to cosmological epicycles.

The point is, I find it problematic to posit unseen unmeasurables to explain gaps in empirical observation. Complication of a model is inevitable as the model matures- often the complication of the model is necessary to see a reduction of the model: its just the ebb-and-flow of scientific process. So the epicycle analysis is not really objectionable. Without the compounding of the epicycles, and epicycles within epicycles (and their need within the theory), the 'classical' cosmology would not have requested intense scrutiny when it did.

The Big Bang may be measurable, but my objection is that there is a philosophical insistence in physics to define 'start' and 'end' ponts for the universe- something I see as a Judeo-Christian type thing.

Having a 'ready, set, GO!' point for the universe also obviates the need of a model that explains what stuff ant time and energy was like before the big bang.

DL