And you can defend this assertion?

I'm particularly interested in the part about what a certain "Neried" insists on seeing in any plausible alternative.

Please be as specific as you can in your reply Jerry.Cougar has already addressed some of this mish-mash, but let's take a look, shall we?

"Dark Energy": A shorthand, for the apparent behaviour of the universe, when thousands of high-quality astronomical observations are analysed using GR (as applied to the whole universe).

"Dark Matter": A somewhat ambiguous term (is it non-baryonic DM?), referring to a wide range of well-established (by observation) astronomical phenomena. Pace Jerry, there are many "good models" of DM; perhaps you'd be kind enough to specify - in some detail - just what you meant by this claim Jerry?

"Inflation": A range of models/hypotheses/theories; a very different kettle of onions than either DE or DM. Many very good "models" have been published, and are available for all to read, in the technical literature; perhaps you'd be kind enough to specify - in some detail - just what you meant by this claim Jerry?

"galactic evolution": presumably this refers to the study of how galaxies evolve. Surely nothing more than a neat phrase that, when you peel back the covers, reveals a great many different things - from how galaxies change ('evolve') inside clusters, how they change after collisions and mergers, how the morphology of distant galaxies differs from that of closer ones, how ... Some of this involves (very good) models; some is little more than high-quality survey work; some is directly ties to cosmology; some is essentially independent of cosmology; .... perhaps you'd be kind enough to specify - in some detail - just what you meant by this claim Jerry?
And since when did every piece of work in astronomy, related to every area of active research suddenly become conflated with one particular article by "Peebles & company"?

The clear implication of your claim, Jerry, is that all areas of mainstream astronomy are in the same 'fix' as the one that "Peebles & company" are talking about. Which is, of course, nonsense.

But, since you made the claim, here in the ATM section, let's see you defend it ... please show that every area in modern astronomy is in the same kind of pickle.So here is one disconnect - although the first sentence of the OP relates to cosmology, the rest of it clearly doesn't ("The EU model" purports to be, as you well know Jerry, an alternative for just about every part of modern astronomy).

But even if it were confined to just cosmology, your little list conveniently seems to focus on just a few aspects of such cosmology - how much heavy lifting did the SCC folk need, to develop what they claim is a good alternative? Or Narlikar?

Here in BAUT's own ATM section we have lots of examples of alternatives (to concordance cosmology) - how much work is needed to get any of them on the map (in terms of showing even the most basic agreement between idea and observation)?

The main reason that there are no serious alternatives is that almost none of any alternatives can even show internal consistency, much less consistency with good observational and experimental results, even when the bar for the latter is set very low indeed.We have a whole thread devoted to this topic, here in this ATM section; should we continue discussion in that thread?