Calling evolutionary biology religion well, is a bit ridiculous. It broadens the definition of religion. What then is religion? Science has to do with the physical happenings in the world where religion has to do with faith. Science is based in observation, acquired knowledge that can be tested.
Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium is an elaboration, refinement on Darwin's theory. I like how Michael Shermer put it "[Punctuated Equilibrium] no more proves Darwin wrong than Einsteinian relativity proves Newton wrong."
My point is that evolution, as a process, is a theory that does not lend itself to the scientific method of experimentation, and predictable replication in a laboratory or even a natural setting. No one has ever seen evolution in action (and Pepper Moths in England turning from light gray to dark gray is not an example of evolution, even though public school text books still use them as such). Scientists look at things like the morphology of living species, unique environmental conditions, the fossil record, and so forth, and have come up with evolution as an explanation for how various species have arisen from lower life forms. But that's all it is: an explanation. There is no proof. It cannot be observed. To look at the variety of "evidence" and come up with the theory of evolution as it's understood requires the adoption of certain assumptions as true. Punctuated equlibrium is based on the assumption that evolution happened -- that it's true -- but that the classic theory was inconsistent with the evidence in the fossil record. What Gould did wasn't question the classic theory of evolution, but come up with an addendum which explains the inconsistencies. From a pure logical perspective, this tact was dishonest. If physical evidence contradicts or causes huge problems for the theory of evolution (a theory, again, which has never been proven), isn't questioning the validity of the theory the logical thing to do? You commented, "Science is based in observation, acquired knowledge that can be tested." My comment is that evolution doesn't lend itself to the testing that you refer to.
Because of it's nature -- that evolution can't be observed, cannot be tested in the laboratory -- evolution is based on faith, or requires a blind leap to have it hold together. That's what I meant in it being akin to religion for the ardent evolutionist. And, again, the stridency with which they defend the theory (a theory which lacks proof and cannot be submitted to the scientific method) is analogous to the fervency of religionists. In point of fact, many evolutionist are secular humanists (not all, but many). They claim not to have a religion, but indeed secular humanism is their religion.
As to the quote that "[Punctuated Equilibrium] no more proves Darwin wrong than Einsteinian relativity proves Newton wrong," I never suggested that Gould's theory disproved Darwin. What it does is attempt to prop-up some aspects of evolution that were sagging under the weight of conflicting evidence (the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record).
Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium is an elaboration, refinement on Darwin's theory. I like how Michael Shermer put it "[Punctuated Equilibrium] no more proves Darwin wrong than Einsteinian relativity proves Newton wrong." Funny, I can agree with that. Punk-eek is a refinement on Darwinian theory. However, unlike Relativity, Punk-eek has absolutely no evidence going for it. Unlike Relativity, punk-eek is just an excuse for the failures of Darwinian theory, specifically the problem of the Cambrian explosion where we see that by 600 million years or so ago, all the major phyla had already arisen and not gradually, but all of a sudden without any ancestors.