State among democrats and Democratic leaners by views about human evolution (2014) Switch to: Views about human evolution among democrats and Democratic leaners by state
% of democrats and Democratic leaners who are in…
| Views about human evolution | Alabama | Alaska | Arizona | Arkansas | California | Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware | District of Columbia | Florida | Georgia | Hawaii | Idaho | Illinois | Indiana | Iowa | Kansas | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maine | Maryland | Massachusetts | Michigan | Minnesota | Mississippi | Missouri | Montana | Nebraska | Nevada | New Hampshire | New Jersey | New Mexico | New York | North Carolina | North Dakota | Ohio | Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | South Carolina | South Dakota | Tennessee | Texas | Utah | Vermont | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin | Wyoming | Sample size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evolved; due to natural processes | 1% | < 1% | 2% | 1% | 16% | 2% | 2% | < 1% | < 1% | 6% | 2% | 1% | < 1% | 5% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 3% | 3% | 2% | < 1% | 2% | < 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 4% | 1% | 8% | 2% | < 1% | 3% | 1% | 2% | 4% | < 1% | 1% | < 1% | 1% | 6% | 1% | < 1% | 2% | 3% | < 1% | 2% | < 1% | 7,244 |
| Evolved; due to God's design | 1% | < 1% | 2% | 1% | 11% | 1% | 1% | < 1% | < 1% | 7% | 3% | < 1% | < 1% | 5% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 1% | < 1% | 3% | 2% | 4% | 2% | 1% | 2% | < 1% | < 1% | 1% | < 1% | 3% | 1% | 7% | 4% | < 1% | 4% | 1% | 1% | 4% | < 1% | 1% | < 1% | 2% | 8% | 1% | < 1% | 3% | 2% | 1% | 2% | < 1% | 3,681 |
| Evolved; don't know how | 1% | < 1% | 2% | 1% | 13% | 1% | 1% | < 1% | < 1% | 7% | 2% | < 1% | 1% | 4% | 2% | 1% | < 1% | < 1% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 4% | 4% | 2% | 1% | 2% | < 1% | < 1% | 1% | < 1% | 3% | 1% | 9% | 3% | < 1% | 3% | 1% | 2% | 3% | < 1% | 1% | < 1% | 2% | 8% | 1% | < 1% | 2% | 3% | 1% | 1% | < 1% | 647 |
| Always existed in present form | 2% | < 1% | 2% | 1% | 12% | 1% | 1% | < 1% | < 1% | 7% | 3% | < 1% | < 1% | 4% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 2% | < 1% | 2% | 2% | 3% | 1% | 2% | 2% | < 1% | 1% | 1% | < 1% | 3% | 1% | 7% | 3% | < 1% | 4% | 1% | 1% | 4% | < 1% | 2% | < 1% | 3% | 8% | < 1% | < 1% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 1% | < 1% | 3,610 |
| Don't know | 1% | < 1% | 2% | 1% | 12% | 1% | < 1% | 1% | < 1% | 5% | 5% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 1% | 1% | < 1% | 3% | 3% | < 1% | 1% | 2% | 4% | 3% | 1% | 2% | < 1% | < 1% | 1% | < 1% | 4% | < 1% | 6% | 4% | < 1% | 2% | 2% | 1% | 5% | < 1% | 2% | 1% | 3% | 9% | < 1% | < 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | < 1% | 500 |
Sample sizes and margins of error vary from subgroup to subgroup, from year to year and from state to state. You can see the sample size for the estimates in this chart on rollover or in the last column of the table. And visit this table to see approximate margins of error for a group of a given size. Readers should always bear in mind the approximate margin of error for the group they are examining when making comparisons with other groups or assessing the significance of trends over time. For full question wording, see the survey questionnaire.
Learn More: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin
