No, she might have a reasonable opinion on other things. But it does call her integrity, credibility and honesty into question.
I'll not be buying any more of her books if she in fact is supporting anti-science.
(Assuming the worst here)
Either she has been educated in science, and knows better, and is dishonestly playing demagogue, OR she's uneducated, but instead of consulting experts, she consulted Dembski. That, in fact, would be very M. Moorish.
Like I said, I'll have to see excerpts from her book before making judgment.
There are a lot of honest conservative authors left
ok, i dont think it calls those things into question but we're different.
yep, i look fwd to seeing the actual quotes/paragraph/chapter too.
but you may have to buy it to see it. :)
Darwinism and science are not the same thing.
I've come to the conclusion that Ann Coulter is the Andy Kaufman of conservatism; you never know if she's serious, or tongue in cheek, but you do know she is trying to grab attention in the slyest manner possible. At least Rush has always been upfront about being primarily a performer ("demonstrating absurdity by being absurd"); I'm never quite sure about Coulter.