As we approach the second anniversary of the passing of Stephen J. Gould, we must point out that the epitome of such rationalization was personified by the theorizing of the late Mr. Gould.

If atheism is the philosophical morphine which provides refuge from contemplating the future justice of God, and the justification for abdicating spiritual responsibilities; then evolutionary theory is the veneer of scientific credence, the cosmetic of rationality providing cover for this self-deceptive faith commitment.  As we approach the second anniversary of the passing of Stephen J. Gould, we must point out that the epitome of such rationalization was personified by the theorizing of the late Mr. Gould.

Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments. He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven…but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."

This idea was hardly original, it was strangely reminiscent of an older tale, known as the "hopeful monsters" theory. Not in the sense that the hypotheses of Gould and Goldschimdt were identical, but in that each wanted to hold onto evolutionary theory in the face of few transitional forms to confirm classic Darwinism. If the processes were distinctly different, the motivations were similar. Here we see a transition of Evolution as not merely a theory of origin, but crowned as a philosophy and system of thought. Gould claimed that evolution was not a gradual process, but occurred in rapid spurts with long periods of changeless plateaus in-between. This clever idea inoculated evolution from refutation by bringing it in harmony with the existing fossil record. One wonders if Gould might have tried to castle out of check (an illegal move) when he played chess.

But Gould may have been half too clever to cover his own tracks. If environmental changes are the catalyst moving the evolutionary process (species adapting to a gradually changing environment), how can Gould account for abrupt changes in the fossil record, without proving the earth went through corresponding cataclysmic changes? We appear to be moving toward effect without the need for cause. Thus, he may have pulled the rug out from under himself on his magic carpet ride.

This sort of illusionism reminds me of the stereotypical carnival game vender. He has spent the better part of the evening bilking some local yokel out of half his paycheck — the guy who was merely trying to win the big teddy bear for his girl.  This huckster had been cleaning house with his "ball under the cup," "hand is quicker than the eye" racket, until some mysterious stranger came out of the crowd and told us how the scam operated. It seems the ball was never under any of the cups at all, but was cleverly swept into a pants pocket when everyone was distracted. Gould's theory is pure genius for someone already looking for a hook to hang their hat on.

The novelist Aldous Huxley, in his treatise, Ends and Means, says the following: "For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation.  The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality.  We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." Evolutionary theory provided the metaphysical framework for meaninglessness.

Is Huxley alone in his brutally honest confessions?  Hardly. Consider the frank admission by NYU professor Thomas Nagel in his 1997 book The Last Word. "…I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and naturally, hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that."  Is there anything so refreshing as an honest critic? Isn’t it amazing how the prophets and apostles of atheism themselves admit their true motives, but the understudies drive on, undaunted, and totally oblivious to the declarations of their ideological champions?

There are those who would say Christianity is a place of refuge for the superstitious and weak-minded among us — it is merely a crutch. But look how easy that argument is turned around, especially considering Nagel's perspective. The denial of God serves as a psychological crutch for someone who needs to hope that there is no accountability for his failure to believe, or for deficiencies in his self-concocted moral system. For as the Russian author Dostoevsky once claimed, if there is no God, all acts are equivalent. Evolutionary theory attempts to add the patina of credibility to the atheistic position.

Perhaps Gould lived by the motto, I'm a skeptic, ergo I'm enlightened.  But no belief system is put to the optimum test in living by it, but rather dying with it. If Gould and Darwin had their family squabbles about evolutionary processes during their respective lifetimes, I warrant that they are now in complete accord about the destination of unbelievers after death.