I don't know if this is the place for it, but there are some things that I am congenitally incapable of ignoring.

it does not account for speciation or the the development of complex systems and structures [...]

To the first part about evolution not accounting for speciation, well, that's just silly. Typically creationists just deny that speciation exists, not claim that it's real buy not explained by evolution. I'm sorry: I'm having a really hard time parsing just what the heck you mean by that.

The second part, though, is just a retread of irreducible complexity, which says, essentially, that a system that loses its function if one part is deleted is 'irreducibly complex'. However, this only proves that the system didn't evolve via the accumulation of individual parts with no change in part function. It's still possible that parts were duplicated, changed function, gained extra functions, were gradually modified, or some combination of thereof. Also, it's very hard to find a biological system that, minus one part, is utterly useless, even if via that deletion it's function is precisely the same as it was before. In other words: show me your irreducibly complex system and lets see if it's actually irreducible.

What do you want to call the process or cause for the animation of molecules to produce living things?

Not evolution. You're talking about the origins of life here, not the ways in which life evolves. And no, neither DNA nor 'dimensionality' is responsible for evolution. Certain DNA configurations are selected for because they confer survival advantages, but they are not a 'designing' agent. And if by 'dimensionality' you mean some kind of deterministic front-loading of design, well then go run off an play with little Billy Dembski and leave the adults alone.

Aside from virii and bacteria where are all the new species that this magical process of evolution produces?

What? You expect nature to put out a rabid burst of evolution just so you can see it in real time? Since we're not finding rabbits in the precambrian (or even, say, the Mesozoic), it seems fairly obvious that at one time they (and many others) were a new species, or are those fossils just hiding from us? And why the exclusion of viruses and bacteria? Is their evolution somehow not evolution?

If anything, extinction of species seems to be far more evident than the creation of new ones. [...] Which one appears to be working?

Never mind that humans are altering many species' environments faster than they can be reasonably expected to adapt. There have been at least five mass extinctions in history. How do you suppose life on earth managed to recover its diversity each time if not by evolution? Or are you proposing that our current 'diversity' is just a pale shadow of an improbable cavalcade of variety that has been in steady decline ever since the beginnings of life?

How do molecules know what to do? How do they move to a higher order purpose? How is that explainable?

Oh, joy. The anthropic principle. And what, pray tell, does this have to do with evolution? Or are you attacking the specious conception of evolution as a Theory-of-Everything that exists only in the minds of creationists?

They forget to take into account that the universe would have had to take some time to get to that size (14.5 billion light year radius) and even if it was expanding at the speed of light, which it isn't, it would have to be at least twice their claimed age.

No, you're forgetting to take into account that light will take exactly the same time to get from point A to point B regardless of whether point A is moving away from point B. It's not like throwing a ball from a moving car. What changes is the wavelength, not the speed at with the light is moving, hence the term redshifting. And to think you were claiming to know something that those myopic scientists didn't.

The fact that people should thiink about stuff is a delight, but this subject seldom has anyone who thinks involved in it. Mostly just true believers on both sides of the same fence.

And a bunch of people who spout anti-science nonsense while claiming to be the unbiased middle ground.

Just a quick note to Anonymous 10:55:

Ulysses is actually still under copyright and, if memory serves, Joyce's grandson has a reputation for being rather prickly about the scholarly use of his grandfather's literary estate. And I'm sure that most of Faulkner's works are still under copyright as well. So the analogy's rather apt, although not in the way Farhad Manjoo intended: from the looks of the Faulkner collection, the book was produced with Random House's permission (since they seem to own the copyright), not just whipped up and published independent of any legal concerns.

For my part, I rather doubt that Mr. Vander Ark's 'Lexicon' will do much damage to any Potter-related merchandise's profit margins, but I'm still not sure it really qualifies as 'fair use'.