Anyhoot, there is a good deal of intellectual ferment in the Church right at the moment.
RE: Coyne's criticism of Schoenborn's position, William Dembski had this to say:
According to George V. Coyne: “In the third paragraph of his op ed article in the NY Times, 7 July 2005, Card. Schoenborn mistakenly defines neo-Darwinian evolution as ‘an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection’ and then condemns it. If you arbitrarily define something in a condemning way and then condemn it, you make dialogue pretty difficult.” [From circulated email.]Coyne's complaint seems weak to me. For Schoenborn's understanding of neo-Darwinism as propounding ‘an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection’ as the driver of evolution is certainly correct, based on Darwin's own statements. So I don't see that Schoenborn "arbitrarily" defined it. That he "condemned it" — well that's understandable!In neo-Darwinism, the raw material for innovation derives from changes in genetic material. According to the theory, those changes are NOT correlated with future benefit. Hence they are random, unguided, unplanned. Likewise, natural selection has no plan — it does not anticipate future functions that are not currently available. It can only take advantage of present function. That being the case — and it is the case — how can Coyne say that Cardinal Schoenborn was mistaken?