Does teaching of evolution cause social decay?

None of what you posted is evidence. It's just assertions.What comparisons have you made between today and previous times? What measurements have you made of social decline? How much trouble did people have finding purpose in life in 1900? in 1850? In 1800? How much political corruption, lying, slander, debauchery, violent crime, abortion, theft, adultery, drug taking, drunkenness, gambling, and greed was there in 1900? in 1850? in 1800?

Lovely! But ... Last time I looked the Bolshevik Revolution started in 1917.

Many creation "scientists" have explicitly disavowed science, and the rest have done so implicitly. For example, the Institute for Creation Research has a Tenets of Creationism which explicitly states their belief that "all genuine facts of science support the Bible".In science, you follow the evidence wherever it leads. If it leads to contradicting your most deeply held and cherished belief ... so be it. If the evidence does not support the Bible ... then the Bible is wrong.Creation "scientists" ignore evidence, misrepresent evidence, and sometimes just plain lie about evidence in order to try to shoehorn reality into their narrow belief system. That's not science.I am ready to discard the theory of evolution if the evidence leads there. Are you ready to discard your belief in a young Earth, or in a global flood, or separate creation of all "kinds" of organisms, if the evidence leads there? When you are honestly ready to do discard any of your beliefs about the Bible (but not about God, which is a matter outside of scientific inquiry and is your own business), when the "creation scientists" are honestly ready to do that, then you can enter the scientific arena and hold meaningful discuszions.Of course, your major problem is that the evidence already does show conclusively that the Earth is old, that tehre was no global flood, that all organisms are descended from one ancestor (or maybe a few ancestors).

quote:

---

When we do start from the Bible we are accused of having blind faith, unscientific faith. I recall having a radio debate with a Humanist about this matter. He declared that Christian scientists who use the Bible as their foundation are not real scientist. Real science starts with doubts, which lead to theories that change constantly as new evidence is discovered. Because what the Bible says cannot be changed , he claimed it was therefore "unscientific"

---

The "humanist" was right. None of what Ham says later changes that or challenges that.Most of the rest of the article is what we call "quote mining"; short quiotes that are taken out of context and often presented improperly (without indication of parts being removed, with punctuation added or changed, ...) and definiteely not representing the views of the person quoted. In other words, lying.Let's pick one at random:

quote:

---

The more statistically improbably a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent designer - Dr Richard Dawkins (Department of Zoology, Oxford University, UK) "The necessity of Darwinism" 1982p

---

Now, it's obvious to anyone on either side who has been following this debate that those words do not represent Dawkins' views. and teh word "superficially" rings an alarm bell .. it looks as if something ipmortant follows, which has been cut out. A Google search leads us to Cretinism or Evilution? No. 3: An Out of Context Quotation, which says {I have emphasized the part that Ham left out):

quote:

---

By lifting this brief sentence out of its original context the editors of The Revised Quote Book make it sound like Dawkins is in favor of teaching the instantaneous creation of animals and plants as part of a "two model" approach to "origins." However, any reader paying attention to Dawkins' use of the word, "Superficially," and to the title of Dawkins' article, "The Necessity of Darwinism," must realize that the editors have ignored the context of the quotation. In context, Dawkins wrote:

​

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer. But Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical forces to mimic the effects of conscious design, and, by operating as a cumulative filter of chance variations, to lead eventual to organized and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and computers.

​

"Darwin's theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist...

---

How about another:

quote:

---

To suppose that an eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of sperical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, i freely confess, absurd in the highest degree - Charles Darwin in Origin of Species p167

---

This is a famous mined quote. Darwin would often raise a possible objection to his theory and then show why the objection has no merit. Creationists love to quote the first part and suppress teh second; that's the "ignoring evidence" that I've mentioned befoer. From Cretinism or Evilution? No. 3: An Old, Out of Context, Quotation:

quote:

---

Furthermore, this quotation has been lifted out of context. According to the edition of The Origin of Species published by Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952 (in the Great Books series), here is the entire quotation in context:

​

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei {"the voice of the people is the voice of God "}, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

​

Darwin then went on to describe how some simple animals have only "aggregates of pigment-cells...without any nerves ... [which] serve only to distinguish light from darkness." Then, in animals a bit more complex, like "star-fish," there exist "small depressions in the layer of [light-sensitive cells] -- depressions which are "filled ... with transparent gelatinous matter and have a clear outer covering, "like the cornea in the higher animals." These eyes lack a lens, but the fact that the light sensitive pigment lies in a "depression" in the skin makes it possible for the animal to tell more precisely from what direction the light is coming. And the more cup-shaped the depression, the better it helps "focus" the image like a simple "box-camera" may do, even without a lens. Likewise in the human embryo, the eye is formed from a "sack-like fold in the skin."

---

There's lot's more there, but I won't quote it all; try actually learning something by going there and reading it for yourself. For God's sake, try thinking and evaluating the evidence rather than blindly reapeating Ham's lies. Yup, Ham's a dishonest quote miner ... and you are helping him spread his lies. Shame on you.