The argument for micro/macro evolution is weak (what, exactly, is the line between micro and macro? why would one be different from the other? if a car can drive 10 miles and 100 miles, do you need a completely new theory to test if it can drive 1,000 miles?) and the distinction between laboratory observations and historical observations (fruit flies or bacteria in a lab versus fossil records) is not one that distinguishes science from not science, otherwise astronomy wouldn't be a science either, since you can't exactly put a star in a lab.