The BeareanBut Gould was a public defender of evolution as against creationism, right? Sure, there are discussions about what the data means, and what the best explanation for that data is - but all the folks you mention agree that evolution is the best fit for the data. What is more, disproving evolution will not demonstrate creationism. The data just does not fit a literal reading of Genesis.
Something creationists seem to miss in their battle against science is that, big picture, science is committed to understanding the natural world, not to any particular theory. Sure, people are passionate, and will defend what they believe to be true, but over time, people come to accept the data that best fits the facts. Examples are the Big Bang and plate tectonics, ideas that upset then-current scientific explanations. Over time though, as the data lined up behind the new proposals, the ideas were accepted. Not accepted as dogma, but as the best explanation for the facts. Of course it is messy, of course there are personalities involved - this is people we are talking about, right?
But I do have confidence that, except for undue economic influence (like with cigarettes), or undue religious influence (like the Pope silencing Galileo), over time, the theory that best fits the fact will win. Creationism has been trying (and failing) to make its case for 100's of years. It just does not fit the facts.
I think evolution tells the story - broad brush, more detail to come, doubtless corrections to be made - but big picture, there is no doubt that the earth is old, and that all life evolved from common ancestors. You have to believe that this is how God did it, because... this is how it happened.
All the folks he listed might agree that evolution is the best fit for the data, but what evolution means to each of them is not the same. Gould even suggested an additional evolutionary force to explain the data - a Macro Evolution. He goes completely against the traditional model of slow, steady, continual evolution and instead suggests instead instantaneous large mutations followed by long periods where there is little or no evolution occurring. Despite this night and day difference, both are called Evolution.
It is the same for Christians. Protestants are starkly different from Catholics, and protestants are perhaps even more differentiated between themselves than that - like Armenians and Calvinists.
My point is that a title like 'evolutionist' or 'christian' or even 'creationist' does not mean conformity - it only appears that way to one who does not bother to research beyond the basic ideas presented by those who fall under these titles.