If what others have to say were not useful in deciding whether to read a book, there would be no book reviews.
I think commentaries like the following one, which reveal Ann to have fallen short on matters of accuracy, are very useful in forming an independent opinion.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/anne_coulter_cl_1.html
I've also heard Ann describe her book on multiple occasions. That's helping me form an opinion, and it's going downhill.
Liberals can drive me up a wall, but the fact remains that lots of them aren't Godless. In a recent survey by the Pew Center, almost 30% described themselves as creationists. I have also pointed out before that specific subsets of the left are extremely hostile to Darwinian thinking, most notably feminists. Another fact against her thesis.
I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw what Ann is alleged to have written about biologists. "Barely scientists anymore"? If that is what she wrote, she has gone too far--AGAIN.
Ann might have used some unjustified hyperbole or even said some dumb things in "Godless". However, I don't think it's a good idea to trust summaries by the ultra-leftist Panda's Thumb and the ultra-ultra-leftist Pew center when the subject is a conservative book.
The left has always tried to make it so that the government assimilates, undermines, or eliminates the church, the family and private business--- the institutions which are the greatest bulwarks against the power of government.
Being an atheist doesn't make someone a leftist and being a Christian or other sort of theist or traditional religious believer doesn't make someone a conservative anymore than not being married with children makes one anti-family.
Being a secularist does makes someone a leftist--- I'm pretty sure Ann isn't going after F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman and Kenneth Minogue, and I'm just as sure she isn't defending Cardinal Roger Mahony, the National Council of Churches, Commonweal magazine or Jim Wallis. However, there is a connection between secularism and atheism; the latter serves as a support for the former.
Just as religious leftists are often (though not always) "cafeteria" Christians/Jews/other, leftists tend to be Cafeteria Darwinists. As Paul Cella put it, empirical evidence supports an essential human nature -- a human nature which cannot be wiped away by legislation or even coercion and force. The typical leftist counts on natural selection to act as an acid upon the cherished principles of conservatives-- not their own-- but that doesn't mean they don't think Spencer Tracy wasn't a hoss in Inherit the Wind;.
Ann is fighting a philosophy-- the sort best exemplified by Peter Singer that raises animals to be treated like men, treats men like animals and sneers at God and tradition--- the same philosophy Edmund Burke fought against:
On this scheme of things, a king is but a man, a queen is but a woman; a woman is but an animal, and an animal not of the highest order. All homage paid to the sex in general as such, and without distinct views, is to be regarded as romance and folly. Regicide, and parricide, and sacrilege are but fictions of superstition, corrupting jurisprudence by destroying its simplicity. The murder of a king, or a queen, or a bishop, or a father are only common homicide; and if the people are by any chance or in any way gainers by it, a sort of homicide much the most pardonable, and into which we ought not to make too severe a scrutiny.
On the scheme of this barbarous philosophy, which is the offspring of cold hearts and muddy understandings, and which is as void of solid wisdom as it is destitute of all taste and elegance, laws are to be supported only by their own terrors and by the concern which each individual may find in them from his own private speculations or can spare to them from his own private interests. In the groves of their academy, at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing is left which engages the affections on the part of the commonwealth. On the principles of this mechanic philosophy, our institutions can never be embodied, if I may use the expression, in persons, so as to create in us love, veneration, admiration, or attachment. But that sort of reason which banishes the affections is incapable of filling their place. These public affections, combined with manners, are required sometimes as supplements, sometimes as correctives, always as aids to law. The precept given by a wise man, as well as a great critic, for the construction of poems is equally true as to states: — Non satis est pulchra esse poemata, dulcia sunto. There ought to be a system of manners in every nation which a well-informed mind would be disposed to relish. To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.