however much they admired the manner of its delivery," Fortey wrote in Life. 尽管他们对他陈述的方法表示赞赏。”福泰在《生活》杂志中写道。

　　That is putting it mildly. 这是一种婉转的说法。

　　If only Stephen Gould could think as clearly as he writes! “要是斯蒂芬·古尔德想的像他写的一样清楚就好了！”

　　barked the Oxford academic Richard Dawkins in the opening line of a review (in the London Sunday Telegraph) of Wonderful Life. 牛津大学学者理查德·道金斯在一篇评《奇异的生命》的文章（刊登于《星期日电讯报》）的开头一行中就说。

　　Dawkins acknowledged that the book was "unputdownable" and a "literary tour-de-force," 道金斯承认那本书“令人爱不释手”，是一部“精心杰作”，

　　but accused Gould of engaging in a "grandiloquent and near-disingenuous" misrepresentation of the facts 但指责古尔德在“夸夸其谈，以极不恳切的言辞”歪曲事实，

　　by suggesting that the Burgess revisions had stunned the paleontological community. 认为布尔吉斯重新分类震惊了古生物学界。

　　"The view that he is attacking—that evolution marches inexorably toward a pinnacle such as man—has not been believed for 50 years," Dawkins fumed. “他所攻击的那个观点——即进化不可阻挡地朝着顶峰前进，比如人类——50年来无人相信。”道金斯气呼呼她说。

　　And yet that was exactly the conclusion to which many general reviewers were drawn.' 许多普通的评论员就是那样不大注意分寸。

　　One, writing in the New York Times Book Reviewer, cheerfully suggested  有一位给《纽约时报》的《书评周刊》写文章的人兴高采烈地认为，

　　that as a result of Gould's book scientists "have been throwing out some preconceptions that they had not examined for generations. 由于古尔德的作品，科学家们“正抛弃多少代人以来未经仔细审度的先入之见。

　　They are, reluctantly or enthusiastically, accepting the idea that humans are as much an accident of nature as a product of orderly development." 他们像接受关于人类是有序发展的产物那样，勉勉强强地或热情洋溢地接受关于人类是大自然中的偶然事件的观点”。

　　But the real heat directed at Gould arose from the belief that many of his conclusions were simply mistaken or carelessly inflated. 但是，对于古尔德的真正批评出于这样的信念：他的许多结论是完全错误的或者是随心所欲地夸大的。