Why Is Only "Micro Evolution" Acceptable?

[madnak]

Wikipedia describes the difference between microevolution and macroevolution as one of approach, and I think that's a good way of looking at it. The terminology is used to describe general rules of thumb and broad categories. None of it is very technical. Neither is "species," for that matter.

Examples of similar sets of categories are the social sciences and the branches of philosophy. How do you distinguish psychology from sociology from anthropology from history? How do you distinguish ethics from epistemology from metaphysics from ontology? You don't.

The reason creationists love the distinction is that macroevolution deals with changes that happened millions or billions of years ago. As a result, it can never be complete or systematic - there's only so much we can learn about the distant past. And that makes macroevolution an easy target - speculation is called "bad science" and incomplete knowledge is characterized as "holes in the theory of evolution."