Ms. Coulter does an excellent job of explaining the controversy about evolution and intelligent design. She creates some confusion, perhaps, by not explaining the evidence for what is called common descent. It is this evidence that makes evolution "....the most pervasive principle in biology, and a thematic thread woven throughout this book."
The quote is on p. 110 of the fourth edition of the textbook used by 65% of biology majors in the United States: Biology by Neil A. Campbell. On page 77, Campbell replicates the probability calculation for random mutations given by Coulter to show that evolution is absurd. The point Campbell is making is that evolution does not apply to the origin of life, but only to what happened after the first living cell began to replicate. The idea that Campbell is in need of a lecture about biology is nonsense.
It is also clear from Campbell's book that evolution only applies to animals and the bodies of human beings. It does not apply to the souls of human beings, which were created by God. This is generally overlooked because there is a lack of understanding of a method of inquiry called existentialism or metaphysics. Free will, God, the human soul are existential concepts. They are not mentioned by Campbell because his book is about science, not existentialism. To deny that the subject matter of evolution is the bodies of human beings is to make a statement about existentialism.
This point is also overlooked because many popular accounts of evolution don't say it. Francis Ayala, for example, in Darwin's Gift: to Science and Religion, says that the human soul is a religious concept. Religious concepts are matters of faith and revelation and can't be proven. In my review of this book, which was published by Sight Magazine, I prove that human beings have souls.
It is true that Campbell doesn't mention the arguments against evolution set forth in Godless, such as the irreducible complexity of molecular machinery and the complexity of the human eye. The reason for this, I suggest, is that everybody already knows these argument. Another reason is that advocates of intelligent design use these arguments to promote intelligent design which is more existentialism than science. It is perfectly okay to spend time figuring out whether the big bang was caused by an angel or by God, but it is not science.