The idea of emergence in its complex scientific sense was first formulated by the proponents of British emergentism. Emergentism in this perspective was an ontology of evolutionary processes in a broad sense, encompassing the relationships between various levels of existence. However, with the growing popularity of this trend, more and more critical voices against this theory began to appear. This article reviews and compares the critical arguments against British emergentism. Works by Stephen C. Pepper, Charles Baylis and Walter Terence Stace, who pointed to the impossibility of explaining emergent novelty from the perspective of a mechanistic view of the world, are discussed.