I grouped them in the sense I could see a paradigm shift happening in both areas
Can you? Anyone who addresses both subjects simultaneously automatically qualifies for crank status (just because the two concepts have 'dark' in their names doesn't mean that they are in any way linked.) Or are you suggesting that there are two independent paradigm shifts? Any clue as to what these are?
And in what sense are you saying 'half-expected' ? In the sense 'it was predicted' or in the sense 'the theory could accomodate it' ?
Both. And in each case, from both General Relativity (cosmological constant) and quantum gravity (e.g. SuperGravity) You do realise that the accelerating Universe is just the Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker cosmology? Any clues when this was developed? It wasn't the 90s...
Of course, you can hypothezise new undetectable particles to accomodate observation,
Is this all you think has been done in the search for the nature of dark matter?
But that's the whole idea of a paradigm shift. It attacks the problem from a whole new angle (maybe the sun is at the center ?). Likewise, New physics shouldn't be discarded, especially if they come in the form of complementing General Relativity in the same way it itself complemented Newton's Universal gravity.
And you are suggesting that this hasn't been done? Your evidence? That we haven't taken up a new paradigm? Could it be that we have considered many new paradigms but none have matched observation as well as CDM?
I still consider this problem to be wide-open in the scientific community.
And your consideration is based upon evidence, or upon a general suspiscion that if scientists can be wrong about creation, they can be wrong about cosmology?