One problem in addressing creationist nonsense is that punditry can only be rebutted by facts. It takes a lot longer to develop the facts than it does to coin an insult. This is the "White Carpet Syndrome." In just a few seconds, a pet can "disgrace" a white carpet. It takes hours to remove the stain and odor.
Coulter's Godless is a crap on the white carpet of solid science. It will take at least ten times longer to remove this ugly turd, clean up the brown stain and eliminate the odor than it it did to deposit this aromatic gift.
Coulter and her like count on this time differential to exceed most people's attention span. Too often, the strategy works.
A dry recounting of the facts is accurate but not convincing. There is an art form to marshaling and conveying ideas in an entertaining and convincing way. Scientists naturally enough do not normally develop the skills to work in this art form and those that do develop the skills often do so at the expense of their research work. I this sense , solid science is in a rug cleaning contest with one hand tied behind its back. Dealing with the dishonest rhetoric of Johnson, Dembski and the Discovery Institute and its shills requires some rhetorical skill along with the expertise to handle t he science. That's why Carl Zimmer's work and The Panda's Thumb group effort are so important.
James Downard rises to the task of cleaning up Coulter's white carpet deposits in two magnificent articles (one) (two) at Talk Reason. In an entertaining style, mixing facts and rhetoric, he demolishes any argument that Coulter is honest.
His comparison of Coulter's claim that there are no fossil intermediates followed by her discussion of Tiktaalik, "the animal Coulter couldn't even screw up the courage to call by name" is priceless. I highly recommend Downard's articles. They are well written, well researched and thorough. You have to be when you're cleaning the Augean stables of pseudoscience.