No, in fact, it's been much the other way around. Arp, and others have a distinct lack of evidence that has hurt their claims for their models. Most notably, Arp's models only seem to work in a few very specific galaxies, and it very much doesn't explain things that directly support expanding universe models, like Lyman-Alpha Forests, and other things.
On top of that, even if the math showing an expanding universe today were believable (which it isn't), projecting that back to a point at which all the mass of the universe was at a point is sort of like assuming that the elasticity of a rubber band remains the same no matter how far you stretch it. In other words, it's basically a stupid use of mathematics.
You seem awfully proficient in the field over people who have spent their entire lives in study of such things. Do you know something that they don't? I'd say, based on your statements above, you don't understand as much as you think you do. See, there is no assumption. Through quasar redshifts the lyman alpha forests, Supernovae explosions, the Sunayev-Zel'dovich effect, the microwave background radiation and other DIRECT observations, we are more than reasonably sure how the universe was formed, and how long it has taken. Recent observations by the Wilkerson Microwave Anisotropy Probe have done a very good job of that.
Typical materialist propaganda! All you people ever do is rely on verifiable evidence and logical conclusions. Why can't you accept the truth? What are you afraid of?
</creationism mode>