>How does this theory survive in the face of current Hubble data using
>the Deep Field Survey measuring the red shift in distant galaxies, and
>comparing that to their relative level of evolution as galaxies which
>indicate that what we are seeing right now is at least 90% of the way
>back to the big bang?
It survives by people fiddling with it by adding new fields, new types of
dark matter, or a nonzero vacuum density (AKA cosmological constant). These
effects change the acceleration of the expansion so that the universe is
comfortably older than the objects in it.
All the fiddles I understand (i.e. from two years ago) seem to have been
ruled out observationally, but there's plenty of room for new fiddles, or
combinations of two or more old fiddles. I can no longer keep track of
which combination of fiddles is the current front-runner. It remains to be
seen whether the fiddling will suceed, or whether the Big Bang theory will
be replaced by something totally new. I'd bet on the fiddling succeeding,
but I'm hoping for total replacement. Either way, progress is being made
very rapidly, and we should know lots more soon. Science usually doesn't
stay this confused for long.