In your book do you clearly delineate between Gould and Darwin? Because though I ran the simulation program myself, it was textbook stuff for me in undergrad. When I hear someone attacking "darwinism" (even though I know you don't mean it this way) to me it always means evolution writ large; I never went beyond the chemical levels, but it seems to me that Gould just filled in some gaps but admitted he didn't have any evidence...-I clearly described Gould and Eldridge's idea of punctuated equilibrium as some thing quite different.