Gould's arguments do not support creationism. They deal with the pace of evolution, not whether or not it occurred. It is a scientific discussion, and should be of no interest to creationists, who deny it all anyway. Why should you care if there were hiccups in the rate of evolution if those hiccups did not change anything but the rate?
I find it amusing that creationists distort and quote mine what scientists say to such a degree that scientists often don't recognize their own writings. It's a pity that Gould is not here to defend himself.
PS I am well aware that Gould clung to Darwinism in spite of the evidence. He admits that the fossil evidence shows sudden appearance and stasis, which he further admits is inconsistent with Darwinian evolution. So what does he do? He amends the dilemma by trying to make the theory of evolution fit the fossil record (and his attempts to do so were a miserable failure). Just goes to show that the Church of Darwin is a religion, not science. Creationists predict sudden appearance, stasis, and catastrophic extinction...all of which are born out by the fossil evidence. So when it comes to the fossil evidence...
CREATIONISTS 1....Church of Darwin 0