Well I suppose it depends on definition of random. What I was thinking is
"random
"having no definite aim or purpose," 1655, from at random (1565), "at great speed" (thus, "carelessly, haphazardly"), alteration of M.E. randon "impetuosity, speed" (c.1305), from O.Fr. randon "rush, disorder, force, impetuosity," from randir "to run fast," from Frankish *rant "a running," from P.Gmc. *randa (cf. O.H.G. rennen "to run," O.E. rinnan "to flow, to run"). In 1980s college student slang, it began to acquire a sense of "inferior, undesirable." Random access in ref. to computer memory is recorded from 1953." ) dictionary.com

So my thinking is evolution (without being put into action by some God/creator/mastermind) is random in that it cannot have an aim or purpose. Unless you're suggesting that the evolutionary process itself is determining where it wants to get to, which would circularly imply that the process itself is a sort of "god"/intelligent design. This would also apply to the process of making crystals you describe. By my definition that is random because the crystals are not behaving towards an aim or purpose, since an inadimate object cannot have an aim or purpose unless acted on by something else.

If we're saying random meaning "doesn't adhere to any rules" then it doesn't seem that ANYTHING could be "random" If I pick a "random number" it still follows that it must be a number and is therefore bound by the rules of what makes a number.

As far as my coments re:Hawking, I wasn't saying that he started his new work based on the Catholic interpretation, nor was I saying he was wrong in pursuing other alternatives to his original theory. I was just saying it bugs me that just because something doesn't fit into the rules we already know "scientists" abandon that idea in search of something else. How is this different than when people "knew" the earth was the center of the universe, and as soon as someone thought otherwise he was mocked/scorned/imprisoned, etc?

God being opmnipotent? If this is true it seems that He could more than easily be invisibly omnipotent. After all, if He created the laws we see, why should he ever have to break them? And if he's truly omnipotent, he could easily *break* the laws, but simultaneously change our knowledge and understanding of the laws so that the law broken was really the rule not the exception. Our understanding of the laws of the universe at any given time is finite. Think about the number of things you do today, that if done 200 years ago would be considered "magic", impossible, against the "law". For instance posting on this board. You can write one message, and almost instantaneously it is readable by millions or even billions of people. If someone 200 years ago heard this was possible, it would go against all their understanding of the natural laws of the universe, but now it is normal, and fully understood. That gets a little rambling, so I'm not sure if it comes out close to what I wanted to say or not. I'm sure it will be viewed by some as a "cop out" but I don't believe it is possible for humans ("finite" beings) to understand God ("infinite being")