What I got out of her book (what I read of it) was a bunch of warmed-over anti-science nonsense. I was sad to read it, because I've enjoyed reading some of her other work and I hate to see that crap become closely associated with conservative politics.
How can Ann challenge and label as totally and completely incorrect and unsupported a 150 year old scientific theory accepted by 99+% of all scientists for which there is literally mountains of evidence and not be anti-science? This is practically the definition of anti-science
Actually she didn't use science at all. What she used were popularized anti-evolution arguments that are based not on research but corruptions of the primary literature which does support evolution.
While real science is bing done in fields related to evolution and research is being published, anti-evolutionists are either busy twisting a fair number of the laws of nature to provide arguments against the research of scientists or they are sidestepping the research altogether and jumping right into politicizing their arguments.
Every point Coulter made that you see as science can be, and most have been, debunked by current science. She is relying on the relative ignorance of science most lay people have to slide her non-arguments past any inherent skepticism her readers may normally have.
That you and others consider her comments to be scientific arguments tells me that you have never read any of the primary literature nor the popularizations of that research. Her comments (which are laced with logical fallacies by the way) in no way resemble a scientific argument. Hell, she never even cites any secondary literature let alone primary literature.