Scientific observations usually have some kind of validating premise otherwise they tend to be beliefs!? Agreed or no?

Completely disagree. Scientific observations are merely statements of what one person or instrument perceives in a reproducible scenario.

So we observe the universe is expanding but there are certain things about that expansion that aren't really explained simply by the expansion itself...

What exactly do you mean by "expansion"? Do you mean the physical understanding of the existence of spacetime as an expanding thing? Because for example there are well-informed physicists that believe that our observations indicate that the universe will eventually collapse in on itself.

You seem fixed on a mode of explanation that requires causes or purposes in things where science does not presuppose either. In scientific knowledge we simply make observations and then use those to predict what will happen in the future or guess as to what happened in the past. There is no "why" beyond a reduction in causality - i.e. if I fall and hit my head, I can say it's because X laid a curse on me and I tripped and a rock was placed by my head and etc etc, or I can say gravity made me fall. But really "gravity" is just the word we use to describe the fact that things fall, it doesn't comment on whether X laid a curse on me or not.