And we observe that there are species.
We can make craters ourselves in labs with tests.
And we can evolve life in labs, and do so every day. Indeed, lab "evolution", is one of the methods used in the phamacutical industry.
We have not yet observed macro-evolution in action.
And we have not yet observed a macro-crater being formed.
Therefore according to the scientific method promoted by creationists, science cannot come to any conclusions regarding crater formation.
The theory that an intelligence, using ancient D-7 caterpillers, dug the craters on the moon is just as viable as creationism.
How do you know it didn't happen that way?
Nor would we expect to, unless we were observe a biological system over millions of years. For a new family, order, or class to 'suddenly' appear faster than this would support creationism (of a sort), not evolution. We do, however, observe species in the process of macroevolution (read about ring species (#3) if you're inclined to learn something about it).
I don't know why creationists use this argument repeatedly; there is no fine line between microevolution and macroevolution. They're both the same process. What creationists call "macroevolution" just takes longer, and its past presence does produce testable consequences, even though not it is not directly observable. (Then again, neutrons aren't directly observable either - it doesn't mean they ain't there.)
But that's microcraterism. Not macrocraterism (which is a theory not a fact).