Actually, no, she doesn't. She likes to make it appear that she does, however, by grossly misrepresenting just about everything about a) biology, and b) the alleged case against it.
For just one example, see post #238. And I have found a HUGE number of examples like that in her chapters on evolution. If you'd like to be pinged to the post I'm composing which lists them all (yes, it's going to be ENORMOUS), let me know.
Anyone wanting to get a head start on their own can just read this list of common creationist errors/fallacies/misrepresentations and spot most of Coulter's arguments and claims right there, with handy links to refutations and explanations.
However, I don't understand how she makes the leap from "evolution is wrong" therefore, "creationism/intelligent design is right."
She makes it the usual way that claim is so often made -- by sleight of hand. You've just been astute enough to catch her at it. It's a really common ploy, though -- ask any "Intelligent Design" fan for evidence of "ID" and 9 times out of 10 what you'll get is alleged evidence *against* evolution, including but not limited to Behe's flawed "Irreducible Complexity" argument against evolution. How is that supposed to provide evidence *for* Intelligent Design? It doesn't, of course, except in the IDers mistaken notions of "if evolution falls, ID is the *only* alternative, and thus *must* be right!"
Seems to be a flaw in her logic.
Indeed.
She even says herself that disproving one theory does not prove another. But isn't that kind of what she's doing?
Yes.
Maybe the answer is in the last few chapters and I just haven't read it yet,
It isn't -- in the last few chapters her argument only gets worse, it descends into "HITLER LOVED EVOLUTION!", as if the truth of an idea is somehow invalidated if someone misuses it. And even in this case, she grossly overstates Darwin's influence, if any, on Hitler, while "forgetting" to inform the reader of all the times that Hitler cited religious motivations. I'll mostly skip that chapter entirely, it's just one long "if evolutionary biology can be misapplied, it must be wrong" fallacy, and it's intellectually vacuous.
but I was wondering what others' opinions were on the subject.
My opinion is that a lot of people are going to be amazed at how often I catch Coulter lying to her readers on the topic of evolutionary biology.
It's so bad that over at Pharyngula (a biology-related blog, although it veers off into politics and other topics as well) they've put up a "Coulter challenge" -- at the end of this blog entry addressing Coulter's ludicrous claim that there's no evidence for evolution, there's the following challenge:
Like I said, I'm not going to take this trip apart sentence by sentence, even though I could, given enough time and interest. I will suggest instead that if anyone reading this thinks some particular paragraph anywhere in chapters 8-11 is at all competent or accurate in its description of science, send it to me. I couldn't find one. That's where the obligation lies: show me one supportable claim in Coulter's farrago of lies and misleading statements and out-of-context quotes, and we'll discuss it.So far no one's taken him up on it. He did a clarification the next day stating that, among other things, "Promising to pray for me, or assuring me that I will burn in hell" does not adequately meet the challenge.
There was another followup 8 days later to mention that no one has managed to find an error-free paragraph yet.
I concur -- it's harder to find anything *right* in those chapters than it is finding ten things just mind-blowingly wrong.
LOL! I thought people who did that were an urban legend, like the guy who thought "cruise control" was an automatic pilot that removed any need for further driver attention.