Macroevolution is so named because it is literally different from microevolution in this respect -- we haven't seen it happen. Microevolution happens all of the time, even with humans, which is why there are different colors and bone structures, etc, of humans, which have been influenced by the environment in which they have settled. Humans have even caused microevolution - in chickens, and dogs and cats, and cattle and sheep and horses, and many other animals that are deemed useful to humans for some reason. Macroevolution is not just a change above the species level. It is a major change in morphology, DNA, etc. It is just like a person saying that just because a child can write something on paper, then it means that he is automatically capable of writing a world class encyclopedia. This isn't a matter of the child growing up, it is a matter of the addition of information and the ability to use it. If that child does not learn how to write encyclopedias, he cannot do so, it doesn't come naturally. So in order for an organism to change its DNA in the drastic way that macroevolution implies, it requires the addition of information. DNA does not change from fins to wings or to hands without an infusion of information which it did not have before. DNA has limits to changing, based on how much information and alternatives it already has. White moths to grey moths, ok. Straight finches' beaks to curved finches' beaks, ok These changes can result in different species. But fins to wings? or to hands? NO one has seen the transitions. Another thing, creationism is not the only source of criticism of macro-evolution. In fact, creationism is a term that was appropriated and defined by specific religious groups as including the unscriptural belief that the earth or the universe was created in six 24-hour days.The Bible, specifically the first two chapters, define the word "day" as 12 hours, 24 hours, or the creative period. This indicates that the word day is a fixed period of time, not necessarily 24 hours long. In fact, The earth itself could be billions of years old. What Genesis describes first is the creation of heaven and earth, and his spirit moving on the formless earth in Genesis 1:1-2, and then the preparation of the already existing earth for life, divided into 6 "days". A person could believe that the universe and life was created without being a creationist. A person can also believe that macro-evolution doesn't make sense without being a creationist. The reason why, is because it does not make sense, and is full of scientific and logical flaws. Many explanations of this concept will take the current suppositions of various members of the scientific community, and will present them as fact. They are not fact, they are suppositions. For instance, textbooks will picture a line of organisms, implying that there is evidence that this is how the last organism evolved. There is one famous line of organisms that ends with the horse, but there is absolutely no evidence that the intermediate organisms that are pictured have anything to do with one another. So, saying that something that is a supposition is a fact is still misleading and unscientific. The gaping holes in the concept of macroevolution are large and embarrassing to those who present it as something worthy of acceptance.