I believe the upshot of the challenge is that evidence shows creativity more as a process of trial and error, logical stepwise thinking, and execution of ideas than any “different” perspective.
The example discussed as the contentious one: physiologists not knowing what the long loops in kidney tubules were for and an engineer easily being able to identify them as a solution concentrating feature. de Bono contends that the engineer’s fresh perspective was the lateral thought process that was needed by the physiologists. Robert Weisberg, author of several books on thinking and creativity, says that from the engineer’s point of view, the conclusion was logical and not very far out of his experience and skill set.
I think the argument merely bolsters my long-held view that diversity on teams is critical for success, especially when innovating. So I think creativity stems from both logical and lateral thinking.