I think its a conversation well worth pursuing. Fads are a characteristic of science/inquiry, as they are of other parts of human life. And they pass through phases of enthusiasm, critique, maturation over various time courses, and decline. "Emergence" is a fairly young fad but certainly its appropriate to begin asking what it is, is not, has been, has not been useful for. I encourage others to throw in their own thoughts. Assessment gets a little complicated because "emergence" itself is actually a new name for the somewhat older "complex systems", and that in turn a new name for the still older "general systems theory" etc etc. Critiques of the latter two are available in various places (it would be interesting to look at those and see how they apply to emergence) but ideas from both are still around (contributing to "emergence" among other things). And, arguably, "emergence" owes a heavy debt to Darwin, and the offering of an alternative to "intelligent design". Ideas currently pulled together under the "emergence" umbrella (cf notes) play a major role not only in computer and game design but throughout evolutionary biology, ecology, neurobiology and, increasingly organismal and molecular biology as well. And in physics, as well as social psychology, economics, and archeological/historical studies (cf emergence working group). The upshot? Probably not "the end-all, be all of reality" but "generative" in at least some realms? And it would certainly be interesting to try and specify where/how and where not/why not.