[Robert A Cook PE]

I have a strong dislike for any theory of all matter that requires that “85% of all matter cannot be detected nor created except by exotic theories that only we can decipher, but we know it must be there because our exotic theory says it has to be there, so it has to be there.”

There is more evidence for heaven than “dark matter” and “dark energy” ....

[Rocky]

First they reject the only place where truth resides, then they search every other place for it.

[no-to-illegals]

The mind of God. Indeterminable, Indecipherable but full of Beauty, Grace and Love. Perhaps the Universe is the Face of God or maybe God's Hands. Is certain God is larger than the Universe.

[Flick Lives]

You could be right. Dark Matter may one day be looked at the way we now like ok at the convoluted theories trying to explain planetary motion before people figured out the Earth revolved around the Sun.

[Phlyer]

" . . .85% of all matter cannot be detected nor created except by exotic theories . . .

First off, dark matter can be detected, and with simple, well-proven techniques. That's the point. The detection takes the form of galaxies that are rotating too fast to hold together based on the visible matter, plus light from distant sources being bent by gravity greater than visible sources can provide. It's 'matter' because it has gravity, and it's 'dark' because we can't see it. That part is solid.

What's missing is that we can't explain it. We don't have any direct evidence of individual particles that, in conjunction with theories of how they would aggregate, match the observed data. That's our limitation, but the observations (detections) are still there to be explained. This article talks about a different theory on how dark matter particles might aggregate, and derives resulting characteristics that might be testable at the particle level instead of just in the aggregate.

Dark energy would never have been called that if we didn't already have evidence of something that has been labeled "dark matter." The similarity of terms was too compelling to resist. The evidence for what is called dark energy is that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing. Any matter would contribute to the mutual gravitational attraction and slow down the rate of expansion so it's not 'matter' (dark or otherwise). If everything is either matter or energy (not assumed in detail, but a convenient shorthand), and it's not matter - and we can't detect it - it's 'dark energy.'

Once again, the problem is not that we can't detect it. It's that we can't explain it.

But no one expects any theory to "create" anything. The effects of both 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' exist. The theories try to explain them.