Irreconcilable. Not at all. Gould's ideas amplified Darwins just as Einstein's ideas about gravity amplified Newton's. Darwin didn't insist on change occurring at a constant rate. He merely had no evidence to suggest that it might be otherwise as Gould did, and in accordance with Occam's razor, postulated nothing more than was necessary to explain what he saw.you must know at how to answer the question comparing Darwin's gradualism and Gould's punctuated equilibrium - they are in their nature "irreconcilable" (unless you don't even know the difference).
Why are you concerned with the theory of evolution more than say string theory or the germ theory of disease? Are you an impartial student of the philosophy of science, or are your interests agenda driven, and if so, which agenda? It's important to know your motivations in order to judge whether your objections are made in good faith in the pursuit of truth through dialectic, or something less lofty.