Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[Esquilax]

I think many experiments would have (and do) account for the properties of the air if it's relevant.

The key words being "if it's relevant." When it comes to dark matter, we don't know if it is relevant, and we have no indication that it's causing an issue anyway. Whence, then, comes the idea that it's a variable that needs accounting for?

Besides, even if it is interfering with the results, according to the premises of your own argument dark matter occupies the majority of the universe. Even if we could somehow determine that its absence would render a different result for a given experiment, what version of the experiment would speak most accurately to the world we inhabit: one where the dark matter variable, seemingly inescapable from our planet in your estimation (and I say this purely because you're implying that this dark matter stuff is an issue for all of science), is accounted for and present, or one where it isn't? What you're arguing for here is roughly like claiming that air is a contaminating variable, conducting an experiment in a vacuum to be rid of it, and then only using the data from the airless experiment to make conclusions about our natural world. Our world has air in it; any experiment that doesn't also take place in an air filled environment is not taking place in an accurate depiction of the environment for which you are making predictions.

In this case, we don't even know enough about the variable to conclude whether it's relevant to control for, even if we could.

So why make the assumption that it is a variable until we know more?