When you said speciation had occurred in a laboratory, I thought you meant speciation from natural selection. However, this was artifically induced, which is more like intelligent design.
The site itself notes that before you can discuss speciation, you have to determine what defines a species. For the observed speciations in nature and also the lab observation, it appears they are using the Biological Species Concept of species as their definition:
2.2 The Biological Species Concept Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.
In other words, they have to both mate and be able to bear offspring to be in the same species. Is this definition relevant for a discussion of Darwinian transmutation of species? For starters, you have to determine why the two different strains in the examples no longer reproduce. Is it because one added some capability that it previously lacked? Is it due to added complexity?
This is what the Darwinian debate is about. That's why a new strain of bacteria that's immune to antibiotics is irrelevant. I have no idea why the two populations can't reproduce with each other, but this by itself isn't especially meaningful from an evolutionary standpoint.
In the case of the lab rat worm it was simply isolation, not genetic manipulation, which resulted in the new species. This is akin to what occurs naturally when new mountains, rivers, oceans, isthmuses (isthmusi?), whatnot separate two populations of the same species -- no "intelligent intevention" is even required (unless you believe someone is making those mountains, etc...). As these two populations no longer exchange genetic information the mutations building up in the genome of one are not reflected in the other, and vice versa. Eventually the two genomes are completely incompatible. This is all speciation is about, really.