One the theories that has come to almost accepted as true is the 'Big Bang' theory. The evidence for it relies heavily on the discovery of residual cosmic background microwave radiation permeating all of space. This radiation with the precise equilibrium profile of black body radiation suggesting that it emanated from deep within a gigantic hot fireball posited to be the original Big Bang has certainly been well studied and characterised. Other evidence for the Big Bang theory relates to the precise coincidence of amounts of helium in the universe and the value emerging from theoretical calculations. Super-computer modeling of galaxy cluster formation also mirrors the universe as we currently see it.
Powerful as these evidences are they are a long way from definitive proof. This is why I am bemused at the lack of critique of the theory. Is this scientific laziness? Or is the scientific community smug about its cleverness at coming up with such a good theory given the scant evidence.
Fred Hoyle, who inadvertantly gave the theory its name, would not be satisfied with the lack of critique. There are many grey areas in the theory - inflation, galaxy formation, so called dark matter and energy. The greatest grey area of all is the singularity at the pont of zero time.