This whole argument is the retarded spawn of a real scientific debate. The micro/macro evolutionary debate was based on the dispute over whether evolution happened in large macro mutations separated by large gaps in time or by small micro mutations which were more frequent. The argument on one side was that small micro mutations aren't sufficient in influencing natural selection due to the tiny advantages such small changes might make, the argument from the other was that macro mutations are rarer and due to the nature of large mutations they are unlikely to become an advantage to the mutated organism.
But to say that micro evolution is possible is to say that cells don't copy DNA perfectly, meaning that when a cell divides the chance of it being a perfect copy isn't 100%. To say there's a chance that a type writer might make a small error surely is also to say there's a possibility that the type writer might make a large error. Similarly it also makes sense to say macro evolution could take place, admittedly less often. So it really doesn't make sense to argue over which happens as if only one can, but it does make sense to argue which has the most influence.
To look at this arguement imagine a microscope being used to look at an object, let's say this microscope is completely out of focus and plays the role of our organism. The random turns in the focusing dial on the side of the microscope play as our macro and micro mutations. A turn in this dial can go either way and therefore can turn to make the focus worse or can turn to make it better, if the dial makes a turn which causes the focus to be clearer then it stays, otherwise it turns back and this force is representing natural selection. Let's first imagine a macro mutation in this dial, if the dial turns a large amount it will either go in the direction it wants to in order to make the focus clear or not. But because this is a macro mutation there's also a chance that if it goes in the right direction it will go too far, this means the chance of this mutation being an advantage is less easily predictable. However, looking at micro mutation, if the dial only turns a tiny amount then the chance of it over turning in the right direction is much less and it scales with how small the mutation is, when the turns get small enough the chance of this change being an advantage becomes almost exactly 50%. Imagine lots of these changes over a long period of time and it's easy to imagine that the microscope becomes perfectly focused with simply random mutations.
With that point made I hope you can see how both could participate in evolution, and no good biologist will tell you that only one of the two scales of mutation exist. The main point though is that as this debate between scientists continued there were various quotes in the debate which were stolen out of context by creationists who misunderstood the argument. The whole dispute over whether macro mutation is possible is a horrible consequence of die hard creationists and novice evolutionists who were unaware. If you see a quote by a respected scientist in any creationist propaganda you really do need to look it up properly.