The problem here is that it is trying to "describe" the problem using a series of short, quick quotations from various sources. Such a thing is never accurate, especially on something as complex as this. This is where a physicist read this does see the actual physics associated with the quote being shown, while the general public ONLY see the quote and take it at face value without realizing the underlying physics. This is where the differing perspective from reading the same article comes from.
Still, I suppose this is an interesting enough article. At least, it reminded me again that hilarious quote attributed to Feynman:
These kinds of speculation are fun, but they are not science, yet. “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds,” goes the saying attributed to Richard Feynman, the late Caltech Nobelist, and repeated by Dr. Weinberg.
I have to remember to use that one of these days. :)