Is it really? Have people formulated specific break downs, then gone to look for evidence?
Either 1) the prediction for a particular galaxy is right, and there's no "dark energy" or "dark matter" or
2) the prediction is wrong, and you add a bunch of dark energy or dark matter to make the equations work out.
It's not testable at all - no matter whether predictions for a particular galaxy are right or wrong, you're still allowing yourself to think that the theory is correct. How is this scientific?
It's that when they do not fit predictions, there is a single parameter (the mass of dark matter) that does explain its behavior, whose model is that of a weakly interacting gas halo. So dark matter tries to fix things in a very precise way, it's not an arbitrary curve fitting exercise.
Now whether there is really weakly interacting matter out there or some other explanation is valid is still an open question afaik; but the evidence is quite strong so far.
Not "out there". It's supposed to be >80% of the matter of the universe. We supposedly are eating some every day.
It's >80% of the average density of the matter in the universe. But that's an average over all of the universe. On the scale of our planet, or of the solar system, that density is negligible--as in "30 orders of magnitude smaller than the density of the stuff you eat" negligible.
No, because general relativity with dark matter (and dark energy--the best current cosmological model we have) predicts a lot more than just galaxy rotation curves. And the whole point of the model is to explain all the things it makes predictions about, not just one.
A discussion on how a galaxy could be missing dark matter - or how it could be separated from a galaxy
Your question is reasonable: Have people formulated specific breakdowns, and gone looking? But it's also unreasonable. An assumption shouldn't necessarily be treated beyond plausible doubt until we can prove it wrong.
They have. Considerable effort has been expended trying to detect changes in various constants related to light, including speed but also some other things. It is expected that if constants were changing, spectra would change as well. So far as I know, all those results have been negative, but it's not for lack of trying. Similar arguments can be deployed for the nuclear forces as well w.r.t. spectrum, rates of fusion, various things you'd be able to observe in certain types of supernovae, etc.
One of the things I don't like about this genre of articles is that it's typically quite mistaken, if not outright disingenuous, about the current state of cosmology. From what I could see, the idea that cosmologists are all stodgy old fogies brought up in a paradigm of the Big Bang and who won't entertain any other thoughts is diametrically opposed to the truth. To my eyes, the field is a bubbling cauldron of various exotic ideas and attempts to resolve all these issues. There's no lack of theories in cosmology and attempts to resolve these issues, including many quite radical ones (the holographic principle, changing constants over time, heck even "Dark Energy" is quite radical in many ways even if it is also the accepted theory at the moment).
What we lack are theories that explain all the observations. Dark matter is favored not because it's the only idea that anyone has come up with, but because it's still the one that best fits the facts. (As PBS Space Time pointed out last week, ironically, the galaxies recently discovered to not contain dark matter are themselves quite strong evidence dark matter must exist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t0jaE--l0Y , because almost all other theories to explain galactic rotations are based on characteristics that can not vary by galaxy like matter distributions can. "MOND", for instance, is not "MOND, except in these two galaxies".)
If you can solve all these problems, as near as I can tell, you'll be celebrated, not shut down by the old fogerati. But be prepared for your theory to need to cover a lot of existing observations; we're centuries past "Well, what if gravity just worked differently?" or "What if the constants aren't constant?" You're going to need a great deal more detail than that.