In today's New Yorker, Adam Gopnik, still somehow only 52 years old, explains that there are new theories regarding evolution.
So there you go! Everything is different now.
In today's New Yorker, Adam Gopnik, still somehow only 52 years old, explains that there are new theories regarding evolution.
So there you go! Everything is different now.
He stole that next to last paragraph from the guy who wrote the dick article.
Someday the "Adam Gopnik" tag will be replete with hyper-efficient slashings just like this one. And I will be happy.
I always wondered why The Evangelicals never argued for Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's theory of cosmic evolution, in which Darwinian evolution is only the process by which all species move towards some Omega point controlled by the invisible hand of "Mr. God." There could be this great argument in the ideological argument between Darwin and Teilhard de Chardin as to what motivates and/or animates evolution in which both sides concede that Charles was probably right. Many evangelicals instead argue that dinosaur bones are the Devil's craft. *Sigh*
I missed this because who reads the NYer fiction section?
Hi-yo!
There's just something about Gopnik where I can can never get through his pieces. Even the screenshot above was too much Gopnik.
Also, as long as we're talking New Yorker, I would like to add that this year's style issue was not up to standards. Putting a front page tease about Michelle Obama and then a lousy three-hundred word article? Ugh. Too recessiony by half.
It's because Gopnick is an onomatopoeia. Also, re: the latest NYers: We get it. Obama won. Can we stop having every other cover revisit this somehow? Every time I see a new Obama cover - Bo, Big O, Michelle, etc. - I imaging the NYer editorial board thinking to themselves, without doubt, that their efforts had something to do with his win. Maybe I'm alone in this feeling (I often am).