As far as wheter or not Hoffman (personally) is a “creationist” is irrelevant. It has become obvious that both sides in that “debate” are ignorant as to the true meaning and implications of “creationism” and “evolutionism”. Neither side disproves the other because they are talking about two totally different things.

There is nothing to deny that G-d created the universe and created the “laws of evolution” in order to run it, just as we have the “law of gravity” regarding the matter in the universe. Similarly, while there might be evidence for or against either side, there cannot be proof by the very definition of the two sides. For example, if G-d created the Universe, but allowed for free will, there would have to be room for doubt. If there is no G-d, then there would again be no absolut proof. What would you expect, a signed: affidavit certifying

“I did not creat the Universe, signed G-d”.

As a result, I would no more require a statement on the matter from the candidate than I would require a statement that he belonged to a particular religion (including the religion of “atheism”). All I would require would be that he be honest and sincere in his beliefs, but be a legitimate representative of all his constituents, no matter what religion. I would expect him to be honest about how his beliefs might restrict him (like Joe Lieberman and the Sabbath) but that would be it.