First of all, there is no scientific difference between microevolution, which is apparent throughout science (including our own activities in developing specialized breeds of dogs) and macroevolution other than that macroevolution occurs over very extended periods of time (thousands of years). Creationists began focusing on macroevolution only when forced to accept the overwhelming evidence of evolution over shorter periods of time.
It always amazes me that creationists focus on using pseudoscience in an effort to throw doubt on the existence of evolution while accepting second and third hand accounts of "historic" events as true despite their fantastical nature and the absence of concrete proof. For example, when was the last time you saw a person arise after being dead for three days?
All discussions of original cause lead to infinite circles. On one had, if you accept the notion of the Big Bang, how do you explain the masses that had to be there for it to happen? On the other, if you accept the notion of God the Creator, what created God? When you follow the evidence back as far as you can, you will inevitably be left with new questions. That is simply reality, not evidence, and not proof of anything.
Personally, I think it's all "miraculous" and amazing whether there is a God or not. In fact, I think the question of whether there is a God or not to be the most irrelevant question since it gives us the illusion of an answer without actually explaining anything. If there is in fact a God capable of creating the subtle and miraculous universe in which we live, I simply cannot believe that such an entitiy would be driven by the petty jealous motivations of which he is accused by so many religions, or that he would want us to adopt such a static notion of reality that we would fail to explore all the miracles around us.