[jennyp]

Sure, but it's not like punk eek is some sort of fundamental break from neo-Darwinism, as the author (& creationists in general) try to characterize it.

Mayr's emphasis on allopatric speciation (geographical separation of a breakaway population) leads to punk eek - but it's also a fundamental aspect of neo-Darwinism itself.

The Wikipedia article on punk eek is a good one. See also this essay by Gould where he looks back on punk eek & its ramifications.

[Driveblock]

After reading the links you cited, one would imagine that Gould and the Neo-Darwinists were members of one big, happy family who really were in basic agreement. Alas, the reality is different.

The article you referenced with Gould's reflections was published in 1991, but there is another that gives a clearer picture of the areas of agreement and disagreement: Gould's article in the New York Review of Books in June 1997, in which he refers to followers of Dawkins as "Darwinian Fundamentalists." He also says the following: "[Daniel Dennett’s] limited and superficial book reads like a caricature of a caricature—for if Richard Dawkins has trivialized Darwin’s richness by adhering to the strictest form of adaptationist argument in a maximally reductionist mode, then Dennett, as Dawkins’ publicist, manages to convert an already vitiated and improbable account into an even more simplistic and uncompromising doctrine." Clearly peace was (and is) not at hand.