Conservapedia

If you're the kind of person who reads about stuff on the internet (which obviously you are, 'cos you're reading this), you'll have encountered Conservapedia, and various websites that have mocked some of the entries.

I had a look for some articles on statistical sorts of things, so that I could join in the mocking, that being my idea of fun. But I failed. The only article I found was one on statistics, which is brief but I couldn't really knock for accuracy. I couldn't find anything else, mean, median, mode, regression, correlation, Fisher, Pearson, all have no entry.

I tried more words more distantly related to statistics - causality takes you to a page on non-sequiturs , which does a half-hearted job of explaining the relation between correlation and causality. 'Evidence' takes you to a page about Jesus.

There are lots of pages to mock (read the Jesus page, but also note that the discussion shows that there are some more sensible people there), but really, it's too easy. However, I'll point out that on the Macroevolution page they make the error of describing macroevolution as "the unproven theory". Of course it's unproven. Theories can be lots of things - supported, useful, good, elaborate, but what they can't be is proven.