To quote you: But the mere fact that you make that argument shows your prejudices, because science makes no distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution. That meme was sheer invention by the literal creationists.
And "Evolution is how the world works. God set it up that way. The only people that have significant problems with that are the "biblical literalists" of Christianity."
Now I ask, who is being prejudiced here. First, you make a wild claim that God exists, and that he set up evolution, and then claim that that anyone who has a problem with it is a literal biblical creationists (combining your terms). However, most evolutionist are anti-God, most notably Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, and the late Stephen Jay Gould. All of them would find your description of evolution (dare I say it?) heresy.
The you say science does not distinguish between micro and macro, as if it was a living thing. No, man chooses to or not to distinguish between micro and macro. No avenue of science is ever completely settled, as we do not know everything. To insinuate that after only 150 years, we can consider the science "settled" is a arrogant as insisting the the sun revolves around the Earth because it had been "settled science" for thousands of years.
You make the dangerous presupposition that those who do not think the way you do are somehow less intelligent, honest, thoughtful, and do not seek after the truth. Attempting to marginalize those who disagree with you makes it easy to dismiss them. The problem is that it is not so. There are many well-educated, intelligent, honest truth-seekers out there who disagree. I appreciate your answer, but the attack of my character what not called for.
Most outspoken atheists are anti-God. Most people who accept the scientific theory of evolution are not atheists. Most scientists in America are people of faith in God.
Who is being prejudiced here? With that statement, you.
I wasn't attacking your "character" (assuming you have any). I'm attacking your phony belief system. "Intelligent design" is and always has been a stalking horse of biblical literalists trying to give their position the odor "rational thought", and slip it into the educational system as "just another scientific position"......it isn't. People like you marginalize yourselves with phony arguments.
Actually evolutionists can distinguish the two. Evolution below the species level is micro-evolution. Evolution above the species level is macro-evolution.
Much as they posture, the truth is that it's creationists who must refuse to make the distinction, at least in any remotely clear, distinct or specific fashion.
The problem is that no modern creationist believes in fixed species. Since the emergence of a new species is "macro" evolution by definition, and since even strict creationists believe that many, if not most, species originated by evolution "within originally created kinds" (e.g. all equids, including multiple species each of horses, zebras, asses, etc) they cannot allow themselves a definition (beyond the arm waving or goal post shoving type) of what "macro" evolution actually is. They would have to admit that they themselves accept at least some instances of "macro" evolution. (For instance ALL those species of horses each have different chromosome numbers. And the necessary chromosomal mutations involved are of a type widely believed to be behind the erection of species barriers, and therefore particularly macro evolutionary in nature.)