Devolution

One of the key questions of our day is whether what we see going on in the world is a matter of evolution or devolution. Has the mass of biological organisms been undergoing a process of advance, or a process of decline?

I want discuss this topic by looking at a science fiction story (by Edmond Hamilton) called Devolution. It gives us (perhaps unintentionally) a mythical account of what could be called biblical evolution. I hope you'll read the story before you read my comments on it. (It's the wildest nine pages I think I've ever read; a great deal of fun, if nothing else.) [1.]

Story summary;
In his story we see a 'creation myth' where perfect beings, slowly over time, devolve in lesser beings. (Less in ability and less in moral uprightness.) Whether Hamilton was consciously thinking in terms of Genesis, I don't know. The 'descent' in his story (which happens to alien colonists to a pre-biotic earth) has a physical cause; namely mutations caused by radioactivity emanating from below the surface of the planet. (It's interesting that this physical cause leads to moral effects as well as physical.)

Quotes and comments;

A. The word evolution has an interesting etymology.
Evolution;
1640s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from L. evolutionem "unrolling of a book," noun of action from evolvere (see evolve). [I'll be using this imagery later.]

B. Devolution is a rarity in Sf in that it presents the idea of evolution in a negative light. (The only other example I've come across was a story by Larry Niven, whose title I can't remember.) The story came out in 1931, and forms an odd pairing with another story by Hamilton called 'The man who evolved'. Devolution is a horror story, where evolution isn't seen as a positive thing but as a nightmare. [see below]

C. Hamilton begins his story with quite a long lecture that outlines the basic theory of evolution as it was known at that time. (Sf writers and editors weren't about to let any 'bible belters' opt out of an education in Darwinism.) This discussion is notable for its scepticism as regards the origin of life.

D. "It's been suggested that they rose spontaneously from the chemicals of earth, yet this is disproved by the fact that no such things rise spontaneously now from inert matter. Their origin is still a complete mystery. But, however they came into existence on earth, they were the first of life, our distant ancestors."

E. I won't bother to quote from the whole story, but I'll give you one more example.

"We humans aren't the product of downward devolution, we're the product of ages of upward evolution! We must be, I tell you! Why, we wouldn't want to live, I wouldn't want to live, if that other tale was true."
- This is a comment made by the lead character, late in the story. I think it does a good job of evoking how strongly some people feel about the subject of Origins.

Evolution or Devolution?
- It's perhaps ironic, but evolution might be a good term for what we see in the years after the creation week. i.e. we see an 'unrolling' of what was already written; in that the history of change and variation that has taken place within the created kinds (of Genesis) was already 'written' or predestined within the original genetic code. In the years since the creation week, we have seen an 'unrolling' of a hidden scroll. (I don't mean by this that every variation we've seen in that time was written out in that 'scroll' but only that its potential was already there.)

- The variations we've seen (e.g. different sizes, and colors, etc. of dogs) were potentially hidden within the original code. When it comes to 'speciation' we only see what is possible; and given the nature of the original code, not everything (by a long shot) Is possible. The six thousand (or so) years since creation have seen an 'evolution' then of the original genetic codes that were 'imprinted' within the original kinds.

- This process of evolution' has come to be known by the unpleasant sounding word/term devolution. This signifies a process of degeneration and decline. [2.] The current meaning assigned to evolution is a progress upward. The popular definition of evolution in our time (of 'progress' upward) is thus the opposite of what the biblical meaning of evolution is, or might be. (Few creationists speak about devolution, or about evolution in the sense I've briefly outlined.) We might simplify the differences and say the biblical evolution is progress downward (i.e. decline and loss of function) while the non-biblical or materialist notion of evolution (that's current) is one of progress upward (i.e. advance and the gaining of function).

- So; do biblical creationists believe in evolution? In a word, yes. Since this will be confusing it might be better to say they believe in devolution. The trouble with this term is that I can't see it taking hold. This is the model of Origins that I think comes closest to the reality of our situation. (The dating factor is problematic.) In other words, I tend to think that there was a perfect creation, and that there has been a decline from the position ever since. That this is an unpopular idea I'm well aware.
- M. Johnson/1/12/2010

Notes;
1. Devolution - Edmond Hamilton; published 1931 [Available online]
2. Devolution; n.
A. A passing down or descent through successive stages of time or a process. 2. Transference, as of rights or qualities, to a successor. 3. Delegation of authority or duties to a subordinate or substitute. 4. A transfer of powers from a central government to local units. 5. Biology Degeneration. (AH Dictionary)
B. 'A continuing process of degeneration or breaking down, in contrast to evolution.' - Biology-online.org
C. same as degeneration; sense 3
'biology loss of function: the gradual loss of the biological function, specialization, or adaptation of a part of the body over many generations.' - Encarta
D. 'the process of declining from a higher to a lower level of effective power or vitality or essential quality [syn: degeneration] [ant: development] - Wordnet
3. Micro-evolution. When I say creationists believe in evolution, I guess I should make it clear that what they believe in is what's called micro-evolution. (That this doesn't hold for everyone goes almost without saying.)