Gould is one person. Evolution is not Gould, and evolution makes no reference to a deity or lack thereof.
Evolution is a forensic statement about history, and it is a process. It is true that the history asserted by evolution conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis.
It is also true that physics conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible. Same with astronomy. Same with geology.
Medicine overturns the statement in the Bible that women shall suffer in childbirth.
How are these not anti-religious?
This statement makes no sense - you asked about the difference between two statements is which God is mentioned in one and not the other. Only people can express options - theories can't talk - be they Neo-Darwinist or not. It is obvious many Darwinists are very anti-religion.
Medicine overturns the statement in the Bible that women shall suffer in childbirth.
I have no idea what you are rambling about but it sure does sound like you don't have any children - do you think childbirth is painless?
How are these not anti-religious?
Not sure what you are rambling about. Many evolutionists are very anti-religion.