I don't think it will. First of all, this is very new and not established. If it can't convince your average biochemist, it has no chance to convince a creationist.
Second, assuming it became established, well, there's about six billion metric fucktons of well-established scientific arguments against Creationism. Thinking "oh, but this one will be the one" strikes me as a mistaken model of the creationist. It's not that they are highly sceptical and thus demand more evidence. They have rejected it a priori for religious reasons (most of them, anyway) and they live in a self-reinforcing bubble of pseudoscientists parsing the information for them.
I expect your average creationist will see this first via an article on Answers in Genesis (or equivalent) which will say something to the effect of "Ha! Silly evolutionists pretend this is a death blow for creationism, but actually this disproves evolution because <insert nonsense about order in the universe or the second law of thermodynamics>", they will nod, think to themselves "Of course, evolution disproved once more" and go on with their day.
This will not be a major blow for creationists. Or a minor one, for that matter. I don't expect there's anything you can do to convince the average creationist by this point short of time-travel. They will just die out eventually if we're lucky.