They're unfortunate because things like the PBS interview are the face of science to the public and journal articles are not. Weinberg couples his theological assertions to the science which is his forte. The people reading this often can't uncouple an opposing theological view from the science when the scientist himself says that one thing leads to the other. Let me tell you this does not play well out here in suburbia.
As for the second part, I say Aristotle was a wonderful guy but if I understand current philosophy of science correctly, unless you can measure the notion of "will" in regards to falling things, it is not science.
"Suburbia" doesn't split the same hairs you do. Somewhere there may be a few recovering agnostics who were duped into faithlessness by a too-great reliance on Weinberg's infallibility on matters of theology--and boy, are they irate--but it's not a large demographic.
As for the second part, I say Aristotle was a wonderful guy but if I understand current philosophy of science correctly, unless you can measure the notion of "will" in regards to falling things, it is not science.
But if I call his notion unnecessary, will you cry foul?
Why should they be required to uncouple what Weinberg couples?
Scientists need to get over their hubris and quit wearing their slab coats when pontificating. That this isn't clear to one and all who appreciate science only underscores their inconsistency in keeping science agnostic. To make "no God" the default assumption is a theological cheat; the proper assumption is "science doesn't know about God one way or the other."