Ann Coulter is definitely a pistol no matter which side of reality she's arguing from that day. She makes a lot of great points-- some of which are off the mark and not entirely grounded in reality, but I do not say that to demean her but rather in admiration of her pluck and spirit.

@jwhitten I read a book of hers where she made some claims about AIDS transmission and DDT that I thought was wrong. Did my own research and found that I had been ignorant. Let me know where she's been off the mark or ungrounded before I grant you your point. I've made that mistake already. She loves to research and find lies.

@RobBlair How about her claim that there are no 'transitional fossils' which, to her mind, demonstrates that Darwin was incorrect and provides her a bully pulpit which with to laugh derisively over the theory of evolution (versus creationism). I am not belittling her general intellect, only a few of her facts. I won't quote her detractors who use her inaccuracy as a cudgel to beat her (back) over the head with. Rather I will simply point to a (more or less) impartial source with better information regarding the present status of the theory.

Wikipedia, Transitional Fossils: [en.wikipedia.org]

@jwhitten
When she states that there are no "transitional fossils' she is correct. The gap in fossils is not even disputed. As per Darwin, there are many holes in his theory and many assumptions by Darwin have been proven wrong even by evolutionary biologists. Now, im not claiming that Darwin was wrong on everything, Im just pointing out that he assumed a lot but could prove little. I also have an issue with people that believe that if question or challenge Darwin's theory you're automatically a heretic.

@jwhitten OK found this from her -
"But that's not what the fossil record shows. We don't have fossils for any intermediate creatures in the process of evolving into something better. This is why the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the "trade secret" of paleontology. (Lots of real scientific theories have "secrets." ) " - [anncoulter.com]

‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. … to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.’
and
"‘The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’" - Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119–130 (p.127), 1980

Not to be taken out of context, here is Gould's essay on the land mammal to whale intermediate study. Ie. we do have intermediates but we're missing some understanding of the process (why isn't evolution gradual?)
[stephenjaygould.org]

I'll note that in her article she is attacking Darwinism not evolution. She does promote intelligent design science but not creationism.

Haven't read Godless.

@Scanderbeg I also pointed out in the beginning that I have admiration for Ann Coulter so I'm refusing to argue against her. Merely pointing out some discrepancies.

I would add that many people, including smart ones-- and including myself-- are sometimes wrong on peripheral issues outside of their field of purview. There is no crime in that. The really smart ones own up to it when they find out and are willing to reassess their world views accordingly.

@Scanderbeg, @RobBlair From the Wikipedia link that I referenced (here: [en.wikipedia.org], there is a link within that page to this list of Transitional Fossils (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils), which include quite a few remnants of animals which have legs (so to speak) in a predecessor categories. I'm neither a paleontologist nor an expert on fossils, but I'll note that there are quite a lot of referenced sources at the end of the article from people and places who seem like they would be more authoritative on the subject. You can read it for yourself and decide. That's what I did.

@RobBlair, @Scanderbeg I never said you couldn't challenge Darwin or the Theory of Evolution. Please do not put words in my mouth. Nor am I above having my own views and beliefs challenged and thus requiring myself to reexamine what I believe / understand to be true.

@jwhitten
No hostility whatsoever, simply expressing what ive understood to be factual. The statement about heretics wasn't ment to be directed at you but since i tagged you i can see why you thought that. As per Fossils, there is a huge gap that connects one side of facts with what they think is a continuation. This is not an idea brought by religious/theist view but rather by scientific research. If one day those fossils are found and connected and fit in place, i will acknowledge it and move on but till that happens, Darwin is a theory at best.
Now about Ann Coulter, lets just say that she lives in my spank bank. She's intelligent and has a lot of integrity. She has gigantic sets of balls, i just wish they were manifested in a different shape on her chest but i guess thats a wishful thinking on my part.

@Scanderbeg I have always thought Ann Coulter to be a sexy woman in an odd sort of way. And I absolutely agree that she's sharp as whip and can quickly hogtie nearly any opponent with her inimitable grace, good humor and-- wait for it-- facts. She gets high marks in my book. The bit on fossils though I think she's got wrong. Did you look at the links I provided? I also pointed out in another comment in this thread that there is a link on that page to a long list of transitional fossils which have been found, and source links at the bottom of the page to the experts / authorities who have weighed in on them. Now, as I also admitted in that other comment, I'm neither a paleontologist nor an expert on fossils, so in the end if you don't agree, I suppose we have a battle of "dueling smart people". You bring your experts and I'll bring mine, and we'll leave them to battle it out while we go have coffee. Whaddaya think?

I'd vote for her. She'd be a damned sight better than anybody the left is capable of running. Put her and Tucker Carlson on a ticket-- in any order-- and you know there would be entertaining fireworks going off for the next four years straight! I can think of worse ways to spend a quadrennial! LOL