So Given science is a larger part of every persons life and the loss of the belief in there being a soul by most modern technologically advanced people, I argue that the world in advanced culture has not gotten morally better.
Really, buildit? Take a look at war-torn Middle East, where religiosity and the belief in the supernatural is ripe. Take a look at ISIS, who egotistically declare that, because they are Muslims, they do not fear death for they "know" dying in battle means bypassing judgement and directly landing in the highest heavens. Take a look at the degree of immorality they exhibit: theft, pillaging, rape, and murder - all in the name of their supposedly benevolent god who wants them to punish and condemn the infidel.
Now compare that with more civilised nations like Sweden and the Netherlands, where the populations consist mostly of atheists and agnostics with a penchant for science. Where people can derive a sharp and superior secular humanism based on golden rules and what science empirically determines best for all. Because of that, the crime rate is the lowest in Europe.
I would argue quite the opposite of what you propound. You have no grounds for what you have just stated. The evidence speaks for itself.
Here again it's not as true as the mass media would have you think as many reported "science facts" about health and the environment are either not true, proven false or misinterpreted by those reporting the news.
I'll grant you that the media sometimes misinterprets findings and scientists have complained about this. But most of what we have stated here comes from scientific consensus where there is no room for conspiracy theories. Remember, their work is peer reviewed.
Who writes the text books? Even basic facts reported in school books is often wrong. An example, how many senses do the science books say animals have? Five right? Sense of taste, smell, sight, hearing and touch. It's taught in almost every Biology book. Yet they forgot sense of balance, acceleration, senses that detect the CO2 build up within your blood. So who lied? Science or the mass media that published it?
I think you talk out of your arse when you misrepresent science here. Science time and again demonstrates that our range of perception is limited and that sometimes we need certain gadgets to dig deeper and give us an idea of the scope of perception of other creatures in the animal kingdom. On our side, technology helps to expand our ken. If you had picked up a book on evolutionary biology you would know, for example, that nature stumbled upon echolocation long before we developed sonar. There is also a type of fish in South America that perceives in terms of electromagnetic fields. A human being can hardly imagine what that must be like and the only way to adequately describe such phenomenon is via the language of mathematics and physics. So your five-senses calumniation has just gone straight out the window!
As for lying, nobody has lied. Science is a tool for discovery and our best method for understanding reality. It is not dogmatic. It is prone to revision and amendment pending further enquiry. It has predictive power because it heeds evidence and calculates. It has in fact improved our lives majorly.
I don't know what biology books you read but I understand that they are oversimplified for children in kindergarten.