And this is exactly the problem I have with Gould, whose very proper desire to avoid teleological (?theological) conclusions about the meaning and destination of evolution have resulted in him throwing the baby out with the bathwater and denyiny the possibility of any kind of progress ('from "lower" to "higher"' etc), even progress as self-defined by its subjects, ie, us. This radical determinism is also present in Engels as a streak of heroic pessimism. I think it's wrong: 5 bn years of evolution did result in what Vernadsky called the development of the biophysiology of rocks to the point of the self-awareness of inanimate matter. That's not nothing, however transient it may be. The existence of Stephen Jay Gould (and you, and me) is the best riposte to Gould's own annihilatory pessimism.
And that's my 2 pence on this subject where everyone is much more knowledgeable, evolved and cleverer than me anyway.
Mark