CONTINUITY OF BERGSON S THOUGHT 1 75 



cumstances, but it may imply consciousness and will. This seems 

 the only theory of evolution that might account for the building up 

 of identical complex organs on independent lines of development. 

 But does it go deep enough ? Effort and exercise will strengthen an 

 organ, and make it grow, but will it develop a pigment-spot to the eye 

 of a vertebrate ? And then how about plants ? And finally are 

 acquired characters transmissible ? Philosophy cannot settle this 

 discussion, but yet must follow it. Bergson doubts whether the soma 

 ever affects the germ-plasm. He thinks the germ may suffer from 

 malnutrition. Or it may be poisoned generally and give rise to devia- 

 tions. He thinks that children resemble parents in their natural 

 dispositions, and that the results of these resemblances may be 

 attributed to parental habits groundlessly. At the most, he thinks 

 transmission the exception and certainly not the rule. 



He therefore concludes that neo-Lamarckism is no more able than 

 any other form of evolutionism to solve such a problem as that of the 

 evolution of the eye, with its enormous number of variations all in the 

 same direction even if we grant that it explains how individual efforts 

 could produce them singly. 



All Current Theories Partly True 



Bergson does not reject any of these views entirely. Each of them 

 being supported by a considerable number of facts must be true in its 

 way. Before proceeding to his own view of creative evolution, 

 Bergson points out just how he regards those four well-known views. 

 He argues with the neo-Darwinians that the variations are inherent 

 in the germs and not caused by experiences, behavior or habits of indi- 

 viduals. But he differs from them when they regard these differences 

 as accidental and individual. He says they are the development of an 

 impulsion which passes from germ to germ across the individual. 



He thinks the mutations of DeVries establish a tendency to change 

 which is anything but accidental. 



Bergson agrees with Eimer that the evolution of the organic world 

 is largely determined by the pressure of circumstances acting in a con- 

 stant direction. But he does not agree that mere physical and chemical 

 causes can ever account for such results. 



