As I try to understand Einstein’s theory, I think of space-time-energy-matter as a “thing”. Everything has to be accounted for all at once. Does MOND do this?
We keep looking for dark matter and it is just not there. Why do they ask us to have blind faith? Will we understand it all in the by-and-by?
For now it makes sense to examine the few bits of what you call “observational evidence for dark matter” and try to explain them without dark matter and see where that goes.
When the day comes to put on cowl and tonsure and just “believe” in dark matter, I expect to be burned at the stake.
You completely misunderstand. Nobody has ever said to believe in dark matter based on faith. Dark matter is accepted because nobody has come up with a modified gravity theory that accounts for ALL observations that a theory of gravity must account for. General relativity with dark matter does account well for all observations. That state of affairs is subject to change, and if someone develops a new theory that explains the observations in their totality, it will change and dark matter will join the likes oh phlogiston and the aether as a discarded concept.
No faith needed. Just observational evidence. Let me ask you: do you doubt the existence of electrons? No electrons have ever been observed directly, just like dark matter. Indirect evidence for electrons exists, such as the behavior of electric currents, the behavior of cathode rays, and beta radiation. In like manner the composition of primeval dust clounds and the oldest stars and the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background point to the existence of dark matter. What rational basis is there to reject one and accept the other?