The attempt to divide evolution into the short-term change, vs. long-term change as if they were *TWO DIFFERENT PROCESSES* has no resemblance to how *SCIENTISTS* understand evolution … as a single process.

This is a division invented by creationists. They try to use the words ‘microevolution’ and ‘macroevolution’ for these two “separate processes” … but this is a complete misuse of these terms as actually used by scientists. Specifically, the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is purely about how we *STUDY* evolution … it is not a division in nature itself.

It’s like the division between “microbiology” and “macrobiology” … these aren’t two different kinds of “life” … it is not a hard division *in nature* … it is only a division in the way humans *study* life … “microbiology” focuses on the very small (that seen in a microscope).

You are absolutely right that germs developing resistance to antibiotics *is* evolution. But so is the change in dogs that has produced the difference between chihuahuas and great danes from their ancestor the wolf. And so is the gradual change in a lizard specie around a huge geographic ring in California that has produced a new species. And so is the evolution of corn from teosinte as accomplished over centuries by native americans. And so is the evidence of genetic differences between closely related, and distantly related modern species. And so is the evidence tracing back deep into the fossil record of slow change over millions of years.

It’s *ALL* evolution.

Evolution isn’t some side topic in biology. It is perhaps *the most unifying concept in all of biology* … on par with cell theory itself (and many would say, it is *more* important because it links more otherwise separated facts).

Teaching biology without evolution, is like teaching astronomy while carefully avoiding mention of gravity … or teaching chemistry while avoiding mention of atoms or molecules.

YES, it should be taught in schools!

As far as the religious controversies, evolution does not necessarily refute religion. Religious beliefs cannot be proven. That’s what makes it a belief system. A system based on faith. If it could be proven, there would be no need for faith. It is possible for both fields to be applied to each other. A belief is a belief, a fact is a fact.

People who don’t teach have forgotten how much there is to learn in the first place. Stick to the basics and teach them how to survive in the “real world” first.