Google is weighing it higher because it's a heading, not because CSS is being applied to it. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to keep the Web developer/HTML Grammer Nazi in me from lashing out...
Unfortunately it's not coded properly. It's using XHTML 1.1 - which must be served as an XML application, but is being served as HTML instead. Par for the course if you ask me (you get what you pay for - in this case you paid for nothing and got nothing in return). Give me a few - I'm going to re-code this bad boy for you.
I've just been looking into that template a bit more, it seems that the designer has some updated versions (these are not professional deisgns). They can be found at: http://www.openwebdesign.org/userinfo.phtml?user=gwolfgang Anyone got any views about suitability regarding SEO and the standard of the coding?
The code is less than perfect, and in my opinion is borderline trash. Then again, I am an HTML grammer Nazi of sorts. Do you want this to be a fixed width design or do you want it to be liquid?
Well, I always used to prefer liquid, but now that people sometimes have very large monitors I think fixed width is preferred. I don't have a problem with you being a grammer nazi, I see that as a good thing! Thanks again!
The problem with fixed width sites is that you're pretty much limited to using pixels for the layout. With %/EM I can provide a much more flexible layout that won't break (anywhere nearly as easily) when the text is resized by the user. And as far as large monitors are concerned, that's what max-width and margin: 0 auto; are for.
Ok. I'm about to head to bed, so I'll get on it tomorrow once I take care of the others in the queue line. (You're #4.)
CSS is not bad for SEO as told by everyone here. Store all css in another file, it will result in clean as well as light code.