In his essay, "Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples," Gould complains about adaptationists' insufficient testing of their evolutionary hypotheses about the origins of the female orgasm. In the same essay, Gould himself declares without evidence (and without presenting a single testable prediction) that "the real answer" is that female orgasm is analogous to a male nipple: functionless baggage from early, sexually undifferentiated embryonic development. (Recent evidence points out the errors of his ways...)
...apparently you didn't read many of those posts. Or the previous 300 threads before this one. Very intimidating. I think I'll walk away with my *tail* between my legs.
If I understand you so far, Gould seems to have been wrong about something. Therefore, he's not a fallible text and discredited.
Behe's howlers don't seem to have had the same effect on him, as far as you're concerned. Already the situation is very odd.
Now consider that Gould actually made a significant contribution in punctuated equlibrium. He spent several years defending it and has brought most biologists around to recognizing that he and Eldredge improved the model in understanding how many cases of speciation work. OK, Behe thinks he's made a contribution rivalling those of Newton and Einstein, but not many people agree.
I suggest to you that everyone is wrong once in a while, but the leading lights are people who have been conspicuously right about something important and generally can think their way out of a wet paper bag.