I think it's logically consistent if you look at it from the point of philosophy. Philosophy is concerned with purpose, and the purpose of evolution is within our power to define by eugenics. Philosophically, "evolution" can be taken to mean "improvement", and devolution to be the opposite thereof, based on comparisons between the two and their overall capability.
Humans, in this sense, are devolving. Due to the new environment allowing us to be lax, humans of today would be unlikely to survive in prehistoric conditions. Indeed, evidence suggests we even have fewer muscle fibers than we did just 10,000 years ago. Evolution says "we don't need it", and in this environment we don't, but objectively this makes us inferior.
I think it's also very worth noting that the most brilliant minds in history, that of Da Vinci and Socrates, haven't been reproduced (in any way close) for thousands of years. Indeed, we of the modern world have fewer polymaths of lesser capability than we did in more ancient times.
In many ways, logically, the modern species is a pitiful and undisciplined version of its former self. This is why the philosophical concept of "devolution" is very important, because it grants humans the ability to objectively determine what they should be. Eugenics is truly the only way to reverse the damage that has been done.