This third theory is a genuine alternative to the designer theory, and Poole would not deny that it works for all the living things on this planet. Now, my argument with respect to God goes like this. This rules out chance as an explanation, in exactly the same kind of way as chance is ruled out as an explanation for the eye. If any such suggestion were made, I should be intrigued and would give the hypothesis my best attention. But I am not optimistic that the hypothesis has much satisfaction to offer the religious.
Evolution takes time and it needs a universe in which to operate.
There is, therefore, to say the least, going to be a problem with any attempt to postulate an evolved God as the fons et origo of the universe. The theory that there might have been a natural selection among randomly varying universes is another matter and is very interesting, but I have no space to deal with it. It is not a religious theory. The irony is that the argument against chance is conventionally used by creationists against evolution. In fact it is the most powerful argument against creation, because creation really does amount to something complicated springing spontaneously into existence.