Except that there is empirical evidence which supports the existence of the latter three
Empirical evidence supporting the idea of universal inflation of the universe? I can falsify that right now. My keyboard isn't inflating away from my hands at the moment. There you have it, thesis falsified by direct observation. One observation rules out the possibility of universal inflation models.
You think there's empirical evidence of "dark matter" and "dark energy"? Present this evidence, or even a hint of it so I can find it myself.
but the astrophysics community is already well aware of those issues.
Which is why the actual astrophysics community (not the pretenders floating these absurd myths) has roundly rejected these ideas as unscientific and false.
For example, why is it that you think so many physicists are attempting to directly detect dark matter particles in laboratory experiments?
The reason physicists perform experiments is to falsify a hypothesis, or show that it is not yet falsified. Science assumes everything is wrong, until shown otherwise. Claims made, not only in the absence of evidence but the absence of the POSSIBILITY of evidence, may be safely rejected as rubbish.
there are a lot of people, like me, who think the dark matter hypothesis is probably the best thing we have going now
Consensus of opinion is not science.
it cannot be considered truly solid until we detect the stuff directly.
Can't be considered "truly solid", or even truly real, therefore may be abandoned without regard.
The history of how neutrons & neutrinos were proposed theoretically and subsequently detected
Cite some sources? Who first proposed the idea of a neutrino, of a neutron, and on what basis?
The idea of a "neutron" is a consequence of the rutherford model, which shared similarities to the bohr model, both of which have been roundly rejected as unscientific and specious. How can any consequences of these models be valid except by accident? Can you demonstrate an atomic model that isn't contradicted by known science and that requires a "neutron"?
by direct experimentation is
Can you describe the process by which neutrinos are detected by "direct experimentation"?
And, btw, despite your desire to confuse the issue of the science of cosmology
I'm trying to illuminate the issue, not muddle it.
with religion/philosophy via making false dichotomies
Those weren't false dichotomies, they were analogies. There is a difference, you know. Go
here to satisfy your curiosity on that.
there are plenty of people who have varying philosophical/religious backgrounds who agree on the big bang cosmology as it is currently understood.
That's true, there are many deluded religionists who also believe quite strongly in "big bang", and will go to great lengths to argue with people who point out it's not science and likely wrong.
On that point, the evidence is clearly against you, for the simple fact that people like me (atheists who accept the BBC) exist.
Yes, it is true that also many atheists believe in "big bang". This suggests to me that some atheism is not driven by reason, but by reflexive rejection of a specific religion for emotional reasons. This is the only explanation I can come up with for why somebody could hold a rational belief and think it's comparable to one of their demonstrably irrational beliefs. A fully sane person boggles at the concept, it's just so alien to us.
Got a car that runs on inflation?
