You were interpreting those textbooks through your unswerving logical grid, Joe. And your logical grid is the fallacy of the excluded middle. Are you familiar with it?
Those who buy into the fallacy of the excluded middle in this discussion between evolution and faith believe that an affirmation of a scientific theory of origins (i.e., the statement that chemical and biological explanations exist for all the data regarding the origin of species) ipso facto excludes the possibility of an intelligent designer or supernatural forces.
Every sentence of your post relies on the fallacy of the excluded middle, Joe. Every. Sentence.
Among those who peddle the fallacy of the excluded middle are Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. Why you insist on joining their company is quite beyond me. Personally, I would rather keep company with Augustine and John Calvin.
Your claim does not comport with the way it was taught to me by Southern Baptists who worked in the public educational system.
Your claim does not comport with the way evolution is taught in Ken Miller's textbook, the most widely used in the US.
Your claim does not comport with the philosophy of the NCSE.
Of course, evolution is taught by humans, and humans are imperfect. So it is inevitable that a few (like Dawkins) will fall into the fallacy of the excluded middle. Wherever that occurs, it is a problem. Perhaps you were taught by an individual who erroneously peddled the fallacy--or perhaps that's just the way you think about the relationship between evolution and faith. I have no intention of trying to sort that out. My point is this:
You are assuming that your educational experience (however you came by it) is normative. And judging by the length of the threads you have started, no amount of evidence is able to dislodge your assumption.
I am glad you were able to recover spiritually from the descent into the abyss of atheism, Joe. I regret that you had to reject most of biology to climb out; there are better ways to emerge. But here you are, and I'm glad that you made it. I do hope you will recognize, though, that there are other ways to climb out of that abyss--ways that do not entail rejecting the lion's share of biology. I was in that abyss at one point of my life, but I did not have to reject key insights of biology to emerge.
And if they were consistent in their hermeneutics, they would also believe in a doctrine of special creation of all rainstorms. There is as much Biblical evidence for the special creation of rainstorms as there is for the special creation of humanity.
You are ignoring the Biblical evidence as you appeal to inconsistent theologians.
The texts speak for themselves.
It is true that there has been no serious theology of rainstorms in the past few hundred years. Before then, though, theologians frequently used the Bible to build theologies of weather. Here are some sources to help you become familiar with the Biblically-based* theologies of weather that were influential prior to the modern age.
A Jewish view
Patristic and medieval theologians had interesting theologies of weather
*By Biblically-based, I mean that ancient and medieval theologians found support for their views in the Bible. I do not necessarily agree with their hermeneutical approach.