[traditional1]

"And she looked really stupid doing so

Whoa...she is spot-on concerning the lack of Darwinian Theory pothole in the chain. Whether you care for Coulter or not, she only looked "stupid" through tinted/un-focused glasses.

Check your facts.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Whoa...she is spot-on concerning the lack of Darwinian Theory pothole in the chain."

No, actually her claims are the same old tired creationist BS. She should be ashamed (if she had a conscience) for the outright falsehoods she allowed into her book. Instead, she's laughing all the way to the bank because she knows that her core audience is scientifically illiterate (as she is herself).

"Check your facts."

I have. If only Coulter had checked even one of hers. Every page dealing with evolution had huge whoppers.

Coulter is the Al Franken of the Right. She deserves as much (or little) praise.

[b_sharp]

"Whoa...she is spot-on concerning the lack of Darwinian Theory pothole in the chain. Whether you care for Coulter or not, she only looked "stupid" through tinted/un-focused glasses.

"Check your facts.

Facts are contained in the primary literature. Literature you apparently have not investigated or you would know that Coulter did not have the 'facts' at hand when she spouted her drivel. In 'fact' all of her information about Evolution was taken from secondary and tertiary (or worse) sources that in the vast majority of cases did not resemble the primary sources in even the smallest detail.

I suggest to you that *you* would have to know the 'facts' before you could claim, with any degree of confidence that Coulter stuck to the 'facts'. If you do know the facts then you should be able to reproduce a few of them here.

The ball is in your court.