I would suggest reading Gish instead of relying on the word of critics who were biased against him before they wrote their criticism. That way you’ll see exactly what Gish said, instead of what other people said about him.
One of the weaknesses of punctuated equilibrium is that it is part of the defensive reaction put up by evolutionists. This reaction is antithetical to science because it begins with a premise (the truth of evolution) and then it tries to imagine ways that the premise can be true. Not scientific, but it runs rampant among evolutionists.
In science if an idea is not supported by objective, physical evidence, the idea is supposed to be rejected.
In science if an idea is not supported by objective, physical evidence, the idea is supposed to be rejected.
Your ideas concerning how science works appear flawed.
What evidence changed from before to after the idea of punctuated equilibrium was introduced? Didn't the evidence remain the same?
Didn't the theory of evolution change in some small ways to better account for the existing evidence? Is not the theory then more supported by the objective, physical evidence than it was previously?
Isn't that what science is supposed to do?
Altering a theory to fit new evidence is a weakness? It is a strength. The altered theory explains the fossil evidence, both new and old, better than the old theory.