You're right, we can't detect it.

However unlikehypothetical. god, testing it is not an impossibility. There is no physically possible way to scientifically test the existence of god because he is theorised to exist in a higher plane of being, dark energy (if it exists) exists on our plane of being under our laws of physics and as such can be tested.

Us being unable to test it due to not having the technology doesn't make the science less valid, it just means its not proven - hence why dark energy is currently only considered

The same could be said for Dark Energy.  We have no way of currently detecting it.  Furthermore we don't even know how to begin to undersand how we could detect it.

The same could be said for Gravitons and Higgs particles or whatever they're called.

Every time they fail at detecting a Graviton they say "Oh... it's there.  We just can't see it yet.  We don't know if we ever will beacuse they hide behind other particles."

Not true, if for example the LHC fails to find the Higgs Boson considerable doubt will be placed upon its existence, if an even more powerful collider then fails to find the Higgs Boson even more doubt will be placed upon its existence. That can happen until the point its assumed that it doesn't exist and then theoretical physics will have to change to accept the experimental physics.

I disagree.  I think they will simply come up with more theoreis why it wasn't found.

Well unless you want to back that up I think you're simply wrong. The thing is they know what the particles should be like purely through the theoretical and mathematical side of physics and as such they know what machine should find them. If the machine that should find them doesn't then they know that the theory has a flaw.

Not... really.  I mean my points remain valid. Dark Energy like Luminiferous Aether are based soley on faith in the current model... when logically it's just as likely if not more so that our current model is just wrong.

Sceince is littered with all sorts of irrational theories based on faith.

Like all the adjustments that were made to the "The earth is the center of the galaxy" model before people accepted the Sun model despite the sun model making perfect sense mathmatically from the outset.

I think the big problem with this reasoning is absolutes, or rather the assumption of absolutes. Dark Energy doesn't require faith because it is the current hypothesis, not a "fact", it is not absolute. It's not a dogma that must be strictly adhered to, and nobody is forcing the belief of it in the scientific community under threat of ex-communication or fiery pit. When it comes to something like higgs particles and Dark Energy scientists would be "higgs Agnostic" leaning towards higgs. I believe in the scientific method, and have great interest in science. But I don't put "faith" in it, I don't follow the explanations "hell or high water" But talking about possible explanations for observed phenomenon, and discussing how it can hopefully be tested in the future  is considerably different from "faith". Because Faith is "The assured expectation of things hoped for, of realities though not beheld" (Hebrews...11:something I think). With Gravitons and dark energy it isn't the assured expectation, it's the possible explanation.

With Religion faith is believing things are fact with little or nothing to back it up. In science they just believe it's the best explanation for the observed phenomenon at the moment, they don't believe it is a fact. There is no "faith" in dark energy. It's an idea.

Oh i totally disagree.   They are absolutely treated as facts.

If you don't adhere to the current hypothisis you are most definitly excommunicated from the scientific community, it's nearly impossible to pubish anything and make a living... you won't catch on anywhere etc.  If you don't believe in Higgs or Dark Energy... colleges aren't going to hire you and nobody is going to fund your research.

The only exceptions are if the work is highly controversial outside of science such as global warming... and even then your shunned by the scientific community but at least you can still make a living and "preach from the outside" mutch how Lutherians and other preached outside of the Catholic Church.