David Cesarani states that "in terms of the sheer numbers killed, the Native American Genocide exceeds that of the Holocaust".
...huh?
"Killed" is a damn finicky word in this use. Yes, european diseases did result in the deaths of millions of American Indians. But the term "killed" indicates some sort of active effort. What we're talking about is a demographic decline over 300 years which we know almost nothing about. In 300 years, everyone alive today is going to be "killed" somehow or another, but presumably, they will be replaced by younger generations. And the historical record is very thin because stone age societies don't leave many artifacts behind. Numbers are VERY speculative.
With the holocaust, we are talking about millions of deaths that were result of deliberate effort and done within a set period of time. There's very little confusion and there is no shortage of records.
You need to pay attention to the differences when comparing sufferings like the holocaust, stalin's rule or the colonization of america...
On a completely different note:
What are you, some sort of baboon? The comic is right; science is extremely important. It's much more important to our future than religion, for instance.
I have a very healthy respect for science (I am studying to be an engineer), but I completely disagree with this statement. Science helps us live our lives and do good in the world. But religion reminds us why that life is worth living and why we need to do good. Religion isn't the only way to do this, but it's a good one. Saying that science is more important then religion is like saying science is more important then art. They are important in different ways.