Yes, they were clearly thinking about it. I just don’t know, from what I saw in this and a few other articles, is how much that really factored into the final decision. I’ve observed a few academic appointments second-hand, and just like in a private business, there are a lot of intangibles that end up going in to succh decisions. Things like how well will this person work with the group, will he be in line with the direction the department is looking to go, is he easy to get along with, do hos particular strengths round out the deficiencies of the others. I’m sure often the people making the decision don’t know exactly what makes them prefer one candidate over another.
So while a judge might make a decision one way or the other, we really can’t know for sure. The most interesting thing for us is to see how the scientific community seemed to perceive his Christian faith. There are other Christians in science - in physics in particular - so I find myself wondering why it raised flags in particular in this instance? Something about the candidate, or that department? Or is it that the political discussion has become so combative that even the possibility of bad press has become an issue?
Of course they have the right to their opinions - though most “creation science” has no scientific credibility, and that has nothing to do with academic freedom being quashed. The scientists at the Vatican observatory would be just as unlikely to want to hire someone who supports many of the arguments widely circulated under that title. THey would be better off if they simply said that science was unreliable on this subject because the creation was a miracle.
But the real problem IMO is the claim that one cannot be a real Christian and support evolution as a scientific theory. That is the claim of fundamentalists and those who are trying to have teaching evolution banned in schools. Because they hear it so often and so loudly the public and it seems parts of the scientific community have begin to accept that those are in fact the terms of the discourse. I actually spoke to a student in a university, a science student - who was unaware that it was really possible for a Christian to be anything other than a YEC supporter. THis young man was a Christian, so one would think he has been at least exposed to other views.
When people are under that impression, it is not surprising they would be suspicious of a scientist who was a Christian.
In order for a test to truly test it has to be appropriate to the subject. God can’t be proven or disproven in a test tube. I would never pray over an experiment, say to determine the weight of an object. It’s the wrong kind of application for what I desire to learn. I would, however, pray over whether or not I should enter religious life, or get married or if I wished to gain some virtue. Applying the proper instrument to the proper object gets one what one wants. I’d never apply a wrench to a violin hoping to get a tune. But I would apply a bow. It’s all depends on what one needs to get out of it/learn from it. 
And so nothing changes. Big victory. Not.