Stephan Jay Gould was a dedicated evolutionary biologist, and never admitted any 'problem' with the essence of Darwinian theory.
His theory of punctuated equilibrium was merely an attempt to explain the observed phenomenon of evolution occurring at different rates at different times, and different places. It was never meant to be a rejection of gradualism, but rather an addendum.See this quote from Wikipedia:

"Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity.[3] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that:

Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales.[5] "
Both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are largely consistant with Darwin,who wrote that:

"the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."

It is generally accepted that evolution is stimulated by a change of environment, and many people are currently of the view that the environment can change very quickly indeed, at least in geological terms.

All animals with backbones have a common ancestor.

That includes we humans, our primate ancestors and their mammalian ancestors, back into the age of reptiles, then back into the age of fishes.

Efrances says that "selection and speciation may be facts, but universal common descent certainly is not." This statement may well apply to Precambrian and Cambrian life, but the people who debate common descent most fiercely seem unconcerned about anything as prehistorical as events between 500 million years ago and 4.5 billion years ago.

They seem to insist that humans were created de novo, along with all the other fish, flesh and good red herring (as well as fossil-bearing rocks) about 4500 years ago. From that assumption, natural history which predates the date of creation (as determined by some person's interpretation of the Holy Bible) is either wrong or irrelevant.

My concern is that creationists confuse the realms of science-based theory and faith-based experience. My further concern is that they lobby to promote this confusion among the wider public by introducing creationist ideas into science classes, in secular and non-secular schools.

Interesting article.

Let us celebrate the great man. What brilliance to penetrate through the enormous complexity of nature, and see a theory with so few simple elements and with such enormous explaining and unifying power. Linnaeus produced a static system of similarity and difference of species. Using this static tool with great skill. Darwin showed the dynamic that underlies and explains it. His wisdom also made no claims as to the origin of life, but confined his inquries to explaining the origin of species. And remember Darwin did it without knowing about genetics, but nevertheless explicitly recognised and successfully controlled for the problem in his theory. His prescience has also laid the foundations for sciences that have not yet come into existence. And to top it off, he wrote in plain English for the educated general reader. A great, careful, humble, thorough, sophisticated thinker; and an example to us all.

"Not one piece of Darwin’s original argumentation stands untouched, unrefined."

I don't think that's true, and I suggest the following original propositions stand untouched and unrefined:
1. More members of a species are born than can survive
2. The members of a species have inherited differences
3. In the struggle for existence, the inherited differences can be and are decisive for survival and reproduction, and
4. Species originate from these inherited differences accumulated over long periods of time.

"In that work, he argues not only for the fact of evolution - all organisms are the descendants, by a slow, natural process, from just one or a few simple forms - but also he proposes a mechanism of change."

Darwin did not argue in Origin of Species that all organisms are evolved from just one or a few simple forms, did he?

I said on these pages last year that there would be a quite a hullabaloo with a few fireworks thrown in surrounding Darwin because of his bi-centennial in 2009. I was castigated by my atheist friend who said that there shouldn’t be any such a noise. He said that scientists aren’t like religionists who want to celebrate Christ’s birthday, and give such focus to a man. Science is only about logic and ideas. But here we all are paying homage to the good gentleman.

And all credit to him. His books did change the way we all think in a big way.

However, I won’t be celebrating. As others have said above, his ideas weren’t all that original. Darwin wasn't the first to suggest the idea of evolution. His ‘great achievements’, natural selection and speciation, were well noted and written about well before 1859.

The reason so many look to him with such messianic fondness was the philosophical ideas attached to his message. Many atheists’ comments were summed up when Dawkins said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. The creator God could now be removed from rational discussion.

I have no argument with speciation and natural selection. They are observable phenomena. My argument is attributing to these phenomena the capability to produce new design features. Darwin only tinkered with biological features that were already there.

I predict that no one much will be bothered much about his tri-centennial. As Philip Johnson once predicted, that Darwin’s ideas will one day soon go the way of other 19th Century thinkers, Marx and Freud. These two were also considered ‘scientific’ in their day but are now put in the category of outmoded philosophers.

Wing Ah Ling, actually he did. In the conclusion to "Origin" -Note: not 'transmutation'- "of Species", Darwin wrote:

"[P]robably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

Dan, it's true his ideas weren't entirely original. However, no one had ever described the mechanism of natural selection in such detail. Remember, apart from his meticulous observations during the voyage of the Beagle, he spent decades ironing out his theory.
As to your point about "outmoded philosophers", I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Isaac Newton is still considered by many to be the smartest man who ever lived, despite his 'Newtonian physics' being largely superseded by Einsteinian Relativity.
As Newton put it, he 'stood on the shoulders of giants'.Equally, if Einstein were reanimated today, he would have to go to the back of the class on relativity, to learn, not to teach.
Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Marx and Freud all made major contributions to their fields of study, and should always be revered for their inputs, not denigrated because they didn't get it all exactly right the first time.
How could they, when advances in other areas contribute to their work? (Mendel on genetics for instance).
Perhaps here is the fundamental difference between science and religion. Science is an ongoing empirical process, where each discovery leads to another and another to create observable progress;
whereas in religion, one man got it exactly right 1500 or 2000 years ago, and there is nothing left to be said.

Grim is confusing faith-based experience with dogmatism.

One person may add to our humanity by their perception, words and actions. In the case of Jesus of Nazareth, a Palestinian Jew, his perception and actions have been passed down over millenia for each of us to make what sense we may of the story. If Jesus wrote anything, the texts no longer exist. His is a story that has been told and retold for its human and spiritual content. I expect it will still be remembered, long after Darwin's 300th birthday.

How it is remembered is another matter. I for one do not choose to confuse the man with the texts, with the churches, the states which identify in some regard as Christian nations, or the political parties which pursue policies which further their interpretation of one man's life, among other goals. It is often in the interest of such institutions to insist on a strict interpretation of texts.

At worst, a holy text is ground down into the dust of a very literal-minded story, full of gaps and contradictions, which must be accepted as is, damn the logic, on pain of exclusion from state and/or church.

Grim puts it that " ... in religion, one man got it exactly right 1500 or 2000 years ago, and there is nothing left to be said."

That is near the worst case. Religions, however, also evolve. At their core is information which is necessary and sufficient to their continuation, and arguably to human well-being.

It is a mistake to judge all religions on one's perception of dogmatic, authoritarian and literal-minded representatives of one sect.