I don't think uses that exact phrasing, but it certain brings all of it together and has a strong proponent, Francis Crick - one of the discoverers of the double helix. More on the subject can be found at Cosmic Ancestry
English eccentric scientists make a good read -- Fred Hoyle, Penrose, et.al. -- but their speculations remain on the back burner of science. I love speculators -- they encourage invention and discovery -- but until the invention and discovery actually occurs, they are closer to science fiction than science.
The question is whether or not there is a "well-known" (to quote "Truibune7") biologocal/cosmological "theory of evolution," as asserted earlier by him.
If there is, I've never heard of it... nor has anyone I know.
Now, let's see what they say at the site you linked:
Cosmic Ancestry is a new theory of evolution and the origin of life on Earth.
So, "Cosmic Ancestry" (which is an updated version of what is known as "panspermia") is a theory dealing with the origin and evolution of life on Earth. That's biology. Thus, it is NOT about Cosmology, which is about the nature and evolution of the Universe, despite the usage of the word "Cosmic" in its title.
As an aside, I personally don't have a big problem with the idea that the first forms of life on Earth could have originated from outer space. Since the (biological) Theory of Evolution does NOT deal with the issue of where or how the "first life" on Earth came into existence, it is perfectly compatible with panspermia.
Hoyle's enthusiam notwithstanding, I think it needs a bit more evidence in it's corner before it will get any traction.