Sorry, but if natural selection is true, it does not mean that micro-organisms and bacteria wouldn't exist. See above (namely, the micro-organisms do something different than macro-organisms and fill a different niche than macro-organisms. Powersaws vs. saws.)
Evolution literally talks about the "change in the genes of a population over time" -- which happens; it's been observed (hence black man and white man; hence some people being lactose-tolerant past baby age in the West but not really anywhere else.) Further, evolution encourages the idea of common descent, which is considered well backed-up through genetics, anatomy and also the fossil record.
To claim that macro-evolution doesn't happen is to claim that no new species can be created (where a species is "a reproductive community of populations (reproductively isolated from others) that occupies a specific niche in nature" -- i.e. where one plant/animal population's set of genes drift so much that they can no longer interbreed with other populations). However, new species have been observed, and many of them at that. You may be interested in the
Speciation FAQ, which describes the issue in more detail and provides examples of speciation. I think it is hard to misinterpret this evidence and I am fairly sure it shows that macro-evolution does happen.
I've seen the claim that many scientists are deciding that evolution isn't sensible many times, but I've seen any evidence for this view anywhere at all. If you can cite