The names of Richard Dawkins and Stephen J Gould will be familiar to readers of popular science books, but sometimes its difficult to place the two in context. Dawkins is responsible for some provocative work, such the idea of the 'selfish' gene, but his view seems to be the one adopted by the mainstream. Gould on the other hand seems more moderate and conciliatory in his books, but has sometimes been seen as a thorn in the side of the scientific establishment, with his ideas of punctuated equilibrium. This book summarises the positions of these two famous biologists and does an excellent job in providing the required context.
However, I didn't feel that the book provided evidence of great disagreements between the two scientists. Partly this is due to the passage of time, which allows discordant views to be accepted into the mainstream. But I think there is always the temptation to make more of such disagreements than is really there. In the book only the last couple of chapters deal with the supposed antagonism. Sterelny is a supporter of Dawkins, but this means he assumes that his ideas are the same as Dawkins, rather than quoting what he has actually written. So to me it seemed more a case of Sterelny vs Gould.