You've pretty much hit on the problem I have when defending a science curriculum in a religious school setting. The unfortunate propensity of scientists to float back and forth between, philosophical, theological and scientific positions.
It is fair to argue that there is no "supernatural intervention" that affects our place in the universe. It is not fair to argue this in science class. Science can't know whether there has been or is supernatural intervention. I'm not arguing about the measurable nature of the physical universe and unless you or Weinberg can find a way to measure purpose you can quit pretending that science has something to say about it.
The unfortunate propensity of scientists to float back and forth between, philosophical, theological and scientific positions.Why are a scientist's opinions any more "unfortunate" than anyone else's? It's not like these quotes came out of the pages of Physical Review.
unless you or Weinberg can find a way to measure purpose you can quit pretending that science has something to say about it.
Aristotle asserted that things fall because they want to find the lowest position they can reach. That's not an artefact of translation; he explicitly attributed an intentional purpose to the action. Am I really under an obligation to take that hypothesis seriously, and present it as a realistic alternative to Einstein's impersonal geometry?