Replies

There is no such distinction (i.e. there is no such theory as "micro-evolution"). The idea of "micro-evolution" is a weasel-word concept because the creationists CANNOT deny the facts of genetic change caused by the mutation/natural selection mechanism---so they try to have it both ways by coining new language.

Actually, it's a distinction made based on observation. Evolutionists try to mash the two together in a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

"Actually, it's a distinction made based on observation."

Yeah, an "observation" that appears only in "creation science" literature. Find and quote a usage in any peer-reviewed biology journal. I can guarantee you that no such language will appear.

"Evolutionists try to mash the two together in a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy."

And, of course, wrong. The micro/macro-evolution fallacy is completely a figment of "creation science". The basic mechanism of evolution is well understood and scientifically proven---there is NO argument about it in science (not creation science). The only controversy is about some of the fine details to explain variations in the rate of generation of species change over time (punctuated equilibrium).

Of course, you are free to believe whatever you want---just don't try to teach it as science.