Not surprising really, but Paul's statements on abortion reveal an unwillingness to accept evolution as fact. (Note: I refuse to use the word "believe" in conjunction with "evolution", as it implies acceptance without evidence)
Paul's statement on abortion:
I think the most important thing is the general concept of: Do you support the sanctity of life? Do you think there’s something special about life? So you think when we’re born that a human baby is different than an animal, that there’s something special that is imbued into human life? And I think there is.
Daniel Dennet writes that evolution is the universal acid (able to eat through anything), and here we see clear evidence.
Paul sees humans as somehow special and distinct from all other animals - not true according to evolution.
If Paul were correct, where along evolution's path did this "something special" get added? A thousand years ago, 5 thousand, a million? There is zero evidence of any such point.
So it appears that Paul either misunderstands evolution (possible) or is purposefully ignoring reality (also possible), or both.
Time for someone to ask the direct question.
Why does evolution matter in public policy? Simple. If an elected member can not put aside personal views when looking at evidence then one can not have confidence in their ability to look at any issue rationally. Not exactly what we want from our elected members if we want to live in a reality based world.