I fully understand that some of the more vocal potheads are idiots. Fully get that.
I do happen to be for the legalization (not decriminalization, but legalization) and taxation of Hemp for smoking purposes.
Cigs are obviously Harmful and Liquor and do damage to it's drinker if not careful in many ways. I'm not saying either of theses should be abolished, but that Hemp should be in that line with them

The Legitimate Science to the effects of Hemp Smoking have come out in FAVOR of utilizing Hemp for Medical - and in the more laid-back scientist minds - Recreational.
Yes, their is a chance of addiction - but it's about 9% verses the 90% to 100% chances on other drugs that are legal - but I digress.

If you wish you can always read over some Essays by Scientists and others who have smoked pot and haven't become utter failures. http://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/ This in particualar is by the late, great Carl Sagan.

it's Ok if you don't agree, but at least know why you don't agree.

Wouldn't you think then they would target creationism supporters - or at least guise it with a few randoms?
4 randoms - then BAM got Ken Ham's HDD full of squiddy goodness.

I would also suspect 4chan being in on it.

Blu-Ray verses HD-DVD I rest my case.

I claim no truth. I'm saying given the evidence in front of me and from what I've seen and read I find that Evolution shows the best model of how the diversity of life arrived on our little world. Could it be refuted and found false? Sure, but the alternative would have to be a better model of showing how the diversity of life arrived on our little world as clear if not more so then the current model. Currently I cannot from my basic understanding of the science around Evolution. Cannot see that happening anytime soon.

I find that in my personal observations those that refute evolution tend to take a literal view of the Bible instead of a more moderate and slightly more sane view of taking the entire book of Genesis as a story and not historical fact. I have not yet met another faith that refutes Evolution so fervently as a Christian with a literal historical view of the Bible.

Although Science itself does not make a moral claim outside to be objective as possible when doing the works of science
Everyday morality is the responsibility of the individual from the standpoint of proper science AFAIK

"Do not hurt your kin" is one of the many moral values wired into us by Evolution (if you happen to be on the Selfish Gene conjecture of morality in human animals)
"Pay and repay in kind" is oddly another one that's in us. That urge for justice and vengeance comes from that.

Morality is not a Human condition - it also happens to appear in many of our evolutionary cousins some closer than others.

Science allows in it's framework the ability to change and grow this is utmost defined as lacking "Absolute Truth Claims" meanwhile most of not all religions I have encountered has made "Absolute Perfect Truth and we're the only ones who got it"
From looking at it in this angle, if a religion changes it's views in any way - it proves that it lacks Absolute Truth for which is claims to have.

And this social construct has a building to meet and and talk about whatever they want at any time they want. They need not the public square.

Yes, but from that point you still have to prove that your magic man exists and that your magic man has in fact done it in that way.
And if we have to take your word for it, what does that say to the other claims for creation?
Be it "Man came from the Ash Tree" as told in the Times of the Norse, or any other Mythos. Maybe I think you should give some credence to the Great Sleeping God Cthulhu.

Some Do, which is why they refute Evolution.

Utilizing the War argument is a weak one - as others will state (Garwulf and an AC as of posting)

Some consider (falsely personally) that science (Evolution to be exact - Eugenics to be precise) was the underlying cause of the Nazi's Holocaust. Not that I'm attempting to Goodwin myself out of the talk, it's just that's the claims that I've heard personally from Creationists.

Religion however on the moral groundwork from my view is shaky ground at best. I mean I've never seen any real solid science (plenty of pseudoscience though) defend the killing or superiority of one type of persons over another.

Regardless - both the tools of science and religion could be used to gain more mass appeal to very nasty actions. Both are reprehensible to this fact.

You cannot "measure" faith for the fact that faith from the empirical standpoint looks a hell of a lot like speculation.
"I believe God exists" (a faith statement) and "I think there is an intelligent force which did XYZ" (a statement of speculation) look alike to me.
When people make these claims they either have to be testable OR tossed out as nonsense until public and independent verification in a scientific manner above and beyond all possible doubt can be confirmed.

I do not disagree with the need to curb suffering, I just think we're looking at it the wrong way.

Let's stop HUMAN suffering first - since that's the one we can absolutely guarantee happens
Then we can work on everything else.

If one day Human Suffering does come to an end, I will gladly flip to Vegitarian as long as in the cure of human suffering we've also found a way to make soy hypoallergenic AND taste good.

That's impossible because Al Gore has no rhythm

I understood it as using 1M to gather up groups (unis and such) to gather together and use the joint gathered funding to build the place and get it running.
So yeah, 1M to gather groups together to work on it MIGHT maybe. Get 2 Big Unis with some clout. Or 4 or 5 smaller Unis together to help. But still 1M in comparison to the Ivy League Schools that might actually have some powers to make it happens to mean little to nothing.