Hey Dennis,
I don't want to get into bird evolution aqs I know it is way off topic, but none of your examples mean a thing to discount Acheaeopteryx's position as a "dino-bird". Nearly all of the fossils you mention are from the Barremian Age of the Cretaceous, about 120 mya, 33 mya younger than Archaeopteryx. Possible exceptions are Confuciusornis which is of unknown age, probably Barremian but possibly older (originally thought to be late Jurrasic, this idea has lost favor). Even if so changes nothing, Confuciusornithidae are probably a separate line of bird evolution not related to modern birds. Enantiornitheans represent another lineage of birds unrelated to extant birds. Heads up: Chatterjee pretty much stands alone in his opinion of Protoavis. Here is an excellent summary:
Dinosauricon – Dinosaurios
So there is something "better" we should all strive for? What exactly does it look like? Would that bettering of oneself include a search for ultimate truth, ie, "the way things really are"? And will the tools of Darwinism and naturalism lead us there?
These are excellent questions. Again I have to say I can only speak for myself and stick to discreet definitions of the terms. I think about these questions a great deal.
I base my personal philosophy (applicable to me) on the idea that the unexamined life is not worth living. If I do something I ponder why, if I hold an opinion a reduce it to basic arguments. If I plan an action I like to (if possible) consider possible outcomes. I operate under the idea that there is truth to be found pretty much anywhere you look provided you can spot the baby in the bathwater. In these things I am a better ME than I was in the past. My college education has helped this as I was exposed to new ideas that I could sort through. Even the concepts and ideas rejected contribute to my improvement. Now I am not claiming complete success in the above at all, not even close. I am working on self-improvement this way and it works for me.
The slippery slope I navigate with this is at what point I begin to feel myself 'worth more' than another who doesn't examine themselves. I can claim it is a personal philosophy but this breaks down after a few logic steps. Especially when viewpoints come into conflict.
I am going to discuss a few examples to make this point. I have a close relative who is very similar to me in many ways. As kids we did the same things, etc. In school he was the golden child, I was second best (in our family). After we moved apart we communicated often and would spend hours debating just about everything. Now, almost 20 years later, he hoards guns, spews on endlessly about the UN, One world government, etc. etc. He calls himself a "tax patriot" and has a giant poster of Timothy McVeigh on his wall with "American patriot" printed on it. He scares the hell out of me. However, we continue to talk (much less often). Invariably when he talks the conversations drifts to religion and politics. He always starts with this "I was thinking one day about.... and went down to the library to look it up.... and no one thinks for themselves....I form my own opinions..." At the same time I am googling his points and finding them word for word from a printable Birch Society pdf or some such thing. He pretends to have thought this out but is reading. Now the question arises, whose opinion is worth more? Not based on content, but based on how much actual thought went into it. So I can think "well I don't agree but I respect your opinion" or I can say, "Screw your opinion you mindless jackass, you didn't look anything up and you are wasting my time spouting this lunacy, there is no law requiring all presidents to pledge allegiance to the UN, no mandatory barcodes on the hands of EU members, etc". So I am forced to be polite and dishonest with myself or admit I am an intellectual snob of sorts.
So now, full-circle, this is why I jumped on you about the bird issue. Maybe unfairly, if so I am sorry. But I tend to get extremely frustrated when I take the time to learn and study something then have my work trod upon by an assertion cut from a creationist page or book and the proponent putting their viewpoint up as equal to mine
I have another relative, a cousin, who has spent a good portion of his adult life in prison and jail. While he is an intelligent guy, he just does stupid things. He will get out of jail and decide he wants to get high. Now my point here isn't to judge him for that although I don't understand it. If I were him, given my constant examination of consequence, and wanted to do what he does I would cautiously make contacts, remain in the privacy of my home, or such thing. He goes out to a bar, gets severely liquored up, then buys his garbage, and does it parked on the side of the street. So he inevitably goes right back to prison. In comparing our two personalities, the conclusion I draw is that he lacks the ability to use past events as tools to predict the future. He is always quite surprised by how short his freedom lasts yet seems incapable of changing it. So I see him on the far side of the "self examined life" spectrum and wonder if he prepresents an oddity or is actually more toward the norm of the repeat criminal population.
Would that bettering of oneself include a search for ultimate truth, ie, "the way things really are"? And will the tools of Darwinism and naturalism lead us there?
I don't believe that ultimate truth itself has much to do with betterment. However, the search might. Provided it is a search. I think people can better themselves in other ways besides ultimate truth. A martial arts master might strive their entire lives for some kind of unreachable perfect balance that is purely internal. In the process they achieve personal happiness on some level. Someone might study stained glass making and find the same thing, I don't know. Whether it be physical, religious, academic, in all cases there are people examining their lives.
The tools of Darwinism and naturalism are leading us to a better understanding of the processes that led to the natural world as it appears today. I wouldn't call it ultimate truth, but it does help explain the "way things are". Not accepting supernatural arguments has gotton us a very long way. To the value of this perspective it is irrelevant whether or not 'GOD' exists. If I say lightening is the work of God and therefore unknowable then I get nowhere in explaining it. If I believe God created a very naturalistic world that runs on a set of laws I can learn and understand then I am on the way to understanding lightening. The same goes if I believe in pure naturalism.
Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
™ Version 4.2
