Gould was the dude behind NOMA, perhaps he was trying to compromise with religious people. NOMA lets the religious people control areas like ethics but aims to keep religion out of evolution, geology and palaeontology. Why this distinction? Was there no better reason than that Goulde was an evolutionary biologist and cared about his field? It's impossible to ask the dead Goulde what he was about. 
While many science-friendly NOMA advocates happily attack creationism, they then hold the NOMA shield up to defend other (their own) religious beliefs - a position which could seem a little intellectually dishonest.
- Stephen Jay Gould This link is out of date and overlooks his death but has a useful list of works by Goulde.
- Stephen Jay Gould on Science and Religion, by Russell Blackford
- ↑ Since Goulde is dead we cannot know if he could have defended himself against the accusation above. Further Goulde died before the harm caused by religious opposition to, for example Stem cell research and some types of vaccines became clear, see Christianity and the 6th Commandment. We do not know if Goulde would have changed his views if he had known.