You say you’re not sure that she does–because someone sent you an email about a book published in 1967 that, you say, contains “old anti-evolution chestnuts long since debunked.” (Imagine that.) That means that her judgments about science are not good. And that, in turn, means that you can attribute to her several views that you have no evidence she holds? that you can call her alleged views “unspeakably horrible and inhuman”? that you can attribute her husband’s religious views (or rather, someone else’s negative characterization of them) to her?
Your correspondent offers no reason for believing his claim that “[a]pparently, she’s undergone no change in this quarter for the past 46 years”–unless, that is, her attendance at a conference and her reported remark to someone else that she thought Michael Behe’s book was “excellent” are enough to convict her.
But so what? Even if she holds incorrect views about I.D., that’s no excuse for slandering her–or for claiming that she doesn’t deserve any better than to be slandered.