What?
Gould was a bit arrogant and didn't tolerate fools very well but he knew more about Evolutionary Theory than any other person alive, and his masterpiece is proof of that.
He also made major contributions to the field (punctuated equilibrium) as opposed to someone like Dawkins who isn't really much more than a popularist and never wrote anything close to Gould's "Structure of ET".
First you're running in circles. The idea that evolution goes in fits and jerks without the need for drastic changes in the structure of or organization brought about by geological events is a very steep climb. I'm content that Gould is considered as he is by the scientifically unwashed is due primarily to his political senses and his ability to hold forth on a stage. I'm in total agreement with critics that His opus magnum contains little evidence and much folk tale and just so stories and that his theory adjusts for every criticism to the point where it is unrecognizable and detached from its Mayr origins.
Hopefully no one else claiming scientific chops will ever write anything so vaporous and self pandering as SoET.
If you want me to not hold back and let loose, just say so.
