Distinguishing "designs"

RADZ complains: But these (human designed) algorithms are just a set of rules for mutating, selecting, and propagating the variations of separately input code to see if improvements with respect to some criterion can be achieved. The genetic algorithms are like the physical laws of the universe that allow for such mutations and variations. The separately input code is like the starting molecules in "some warm little pond". So, one might protest that the fundamental laws in this case had intelligent input, but the fact remains that the operation of these algorithms is a Darwinian evolutionary process and does produce new and novel structures (usually of electronic circuits and software modules) with greater complexity and new information.However, RADZ is correct in stating that the anti-evolutionary crowd will just try to blow this off as examples of intelligent design. They have already done that. Perhaps a more compelling example of the use of Darwinian evolution in the lab is combinatorial chemistry (q.g.) where the distinction between the underlying structure or laws (rules for combinatorial construction) and the materials upon which these rules act is more evident.