A little confuse about the role that architect playing

For the process about virtual evolution mentioned in the article, "the space of possible designs that the algorithm searches needs to be suficiently rich for the evolutionary results to be truly surprising" is the first point that enlighten me, but also confuses me a little.
About the evolution of the virtual structure, when the number of the changes or the generations are large enough, the result will be quite unexpected, and far different from the original generation. Surely that will bring up some amazing designs after the process, but what role is architect playing in this process? Just a critic who gives comment? Or a final-decision-maker to dicide which should be kept or to be thrown away? If so, what's the difference between an architect and a passer-by?
As my thought, architect should be a god of such progress instead of the final-decision-maker, which means architect should get involved of the whole evolution progress rather than take a glance at the result. Architect should design the first generation with required function, which could define the correct topological relations of the several parts in this design; architect need to set up the rules of "natural selection", too, so that every generation could be directed to follow the restrictions. There must be something else an architect need to concern, but so far not so clear in my head.......