You might be able to make a case to the general public that the views on those issues are not consequential to a presidential candidate, but I think people viscerally know that your view of either reflects your answer to the VERY important question - “who is man?”
Imageo Dei, image of God, a special creation in a created world,
or Imageo Goo, evolved from goo, nothing special, and a blight on this accidental planet.
I would like a politician to say, "I think we're special. I think we are here for a purpose. I think we answer to a higher authority and that we are bound by a moral sense which comes from that higher authority. That's how I see us. Now, as to what your local schools should teach in their science classes, well, I'm a representative of the federal government, and you do NOT want me to be involved in such things. Let your local school board decide that stuff. Next question?"
Imageo Dei, image of God, a special creation in a created world,
or Imageo Goo, evolved from goo, nothing special, and a blight on this accidental planet.”
The Founders carefully crafted the declaration to say that man was free to worship his “Creator”, not his God”, and most certainly not his Mad Mo. They so did to avoid the religious warfare which had devastated Europe.
Whatever one’s opinion of their “Creator” may be, to allow such an opinion to cause one to reject hard data on such basis is, arguably, more of a European than an American perspective.
Whatever the origins of Man - as yet we have no way to arrive at a verifiable answer to that question. Thus, to needlessly (and fruitlessly) add the issue of Man’s origin to a climate question is, IMHO, both unnecessary and unproductive.