Let’s try this again.
In a recent post here at TSZ Elizabeth Liddle made the following statement:
What undermines the “case for design” chiefly, is that there isn’t a case for a designer.
Odd, I thought. Surely she knows better. All that time spent over at UD and never a case for a designer? Is this claim believable? I thought not.
This was later followed by yet another comment from Elizabeth:
I haven’t really taken to the “atheist” label, much although I don’t reject it – but it [the atheist label] implies that my non-belief in god or gods is something categorically different from my non-belief in unicorns or toothfairies, or in the proverbial orbiting teapot.
But it is categorically different. No one believes orbiting teapots design anything and an orbiting teapot would be an instance of design not an instance of a designer.
Given the trajectory of the original at thread I think it’s reasonable to believe that Elizabeth’s claim that there is no case for a designer should be understood as a claim that there is no case for the existence of God. I won’t even call this a transition, because I can’t detect a transition from “designer” to “god” that consists of any distinction.
Elizabeth Liddle:
Can you give me some arguments for the existence for a god of some sort?
Elizabeth Liddle:
…compared to the time when I acted as though it were true that an omipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God existed, I am no longer faced with the problem as to why bad things happen, nor how a person could possibly think, feel or act or experience after their brain had ceased to function. So I now have a more parsimonious model, which means that not only do I not have to fill my head with unnecessary non-useful beliefs, I no longer have to solve the problems that those earlier assumptions presented.
It’s not that there’s no case for a designer [God], but that now Elizabeth doesn’t have to think about what the existence of a designer [God] entails. It’s not that she did not have a model based upon her beliefs, but that now her model is “more parsimonious.”
And now for the kicker…
Elizabeth Liddle:
I know there are such arguments. I find none of them persuasive.
Directly contradicting her earlier statement.
Why would a case for the existence of God not qualify as a case for a designer?
What is the difference between these two claims: 1) there is no case for a designer, and 2) there is no case for the existence of God?
When Elizabeth asserted there was no case for a designer, did she simply mean to assert that she found no case for the existence of a designer that compelled belief?
Funny watching the goalposts move. Blatter would approve. Any update on “non materialistic science”, WJM?
I guess if your prior is that immaterial (whatever that means in this context) minds can push material around (I’d have defined “material” as something that can push stuff around actually), then you probably don’t see the need to look for evidence of the pusher.
But I see absolutely no evidence that immaterial stuff can push material stuff around, nor any reason to think it is even a coherent proposal, let alone sensible.
Gregory,
With all due respect, you probably have a point to make, but when no one else uses the capitalization the way you do, it’s not useful in communication.
But WAIT Sir Richard, wait, wait…..
I protesteth…and beseech thee a relookie….
See ye, a Glen Davidson …as such courteousnessfull courtier’s courtesy fourcefully reply as below……..
…..for the winWIN!!!!!!!!
//////Glen Davidson:……….zzzzzz……/wakes up for his usual picosend moment of luciditynesslessness/…. yes, here, HERE, i’m here….hrmm, hrr, guhh….//loudly….
Ms. Liddle,
It seems force is responsible for pushing matter around.
Is force material? If so, how do you know?
Material minds demand an answer.
Hi Elizabeth, I don’t see a distinction, so in that you would be correct. But I am asking where you see a distinction.
You seem to be saying that there are in fact two cases for a designer that you are aware of, one from biological organisms and another from fine-tuning.
I propose a third, you’ve read Darwin’s Doubt. So that’s another one.
And you have abandoned any claim that there is no case for God.
So I have two questions:
How is a case for God not a case for a designer? What is the distinction?
Thank you
Read a book, Allan. Or search the web. Sheesh.
Gregory, would you answer a question for me? Does spittle fly off your fingers when you type up these screeds of yours?
Here, in return I’ll even answer a question (or two) for you.
I am not a young earth creationist. I accept that the universe and the earth are quite old. I doubt that I would qualify as an old earth creationist either, at least not in the sense that God ‘poofed’ into existence from nothing all sorts of new creatures, but just happened to do so over long periods of time.
Who knows, I might even hold a view close to your own, not that you’ll ever discover that with the way you go on.
Remind me to contribute to the DI this year.
Thanks KN, I think your post is is a great place to start from to discuss the distinctions.
So if someone says, for example, there is no case for a designer, what they really mean [or really intend to convey] is there is no scientific case for a designer [or at least that ought to be their intent]?
But isn’t that the same thing they mean when they say there is no case for god or gods?
I think, in these debates, the statements are equivalent and even sought to show this by example from the exchange with Elizabeth documented in the OP.
Many cases for the existence of God begin with the things we observe. How are these not then “Designer” arguments?
😀
Well Salvador, let me suggest that you get to work on another OP of your own, one that sets out a case for a designer. Then we can put to rest this whole matter of “no case for a designer.”
I promise not to complain about how many pages it takes up.
Allan, why don’t don’t you start a new OP on semiosis instead of hijacking this one, since it seems to be of interest to numerous parties here?
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the following:
1. what it means to assert that there is no case for a designer
2. whether it is in fact the case that there is no case for a designer
3. what it means to assert that there is no case for a god or gods
4. whether it is in fact the case that there is no case for a god or gods
5. the distinctions between [or even within] the above claims
Thank you
This is simply false, but this is not the thread to discuss it. Feel free to start your own thread on Organisms and Artifacts. I might even participate if you can remain civil.
Very briefly:
Material vs Immaterial
… defined as …
Objective reality vs Subjective experience
Is subjective experience real? Does it exist? Can it be seen as an illusion? If so, what is it fooling — the objective? This makes no sense. The objective has nothing to ‘fool’ — it merely exists.
On the flip side, what we experience as ‘objective’ can be illusory. Hallucinations can appear as ‘real’ as any real, objective thing. The hallucination definitely exists but not in any objective sense. In that case, Subjective experience is being fooled, adding to the evidence that the subjective is real. If it weren’t, how could it be fooled?
Therefore, the material and immaterial both exist. Which is fundamental? Are they both fundamentally at the same level. Not sure at the moment.
Tell you what, Steve, you bring your best peer reviewed article and I’ll bring mine and we’ll quickly see if anyone is full of shit? We can go through a few. And none of mine are based on “what I don’t think a designer could do or insufficiency / negative arguments”. 😉
And many cases DON’T. The arguments for god’s existence which begin with things we observe in our natural world may concurrently be arguments fora big-D Designer, but those aren’t the only kind of arguments for god’s existence.
So, you should recognize – from your own words – that there are separate cases to be made for god if we don’t see god as the designer (or at least, not the Designer of life).
I personally believe in a god who lit the blue touch paper to spark the very first nanosecond of our observable universe. But without omniscience (which I think is logically unsupportable, despite centuries of sincere christian belief in the “omnis”),without knowing in advance how it would all turn out, and without caring or trying to plan what the result would be! If it would turn out to be a universe which was only hospitable to black holes? Great. if it would turn out to be a universe which ended up through 9 billion years of cosmic evolution to contain planetary concentrations of elements which then in turn could combine chemically (without any extra goddy interference) into proto-life and eventually (still without care or plan from god) evolve into conscious animals who can speculate about god? Great. God wouldn’t mind either way. It’s all good.
You might not think such a being deserves the name “god” but it’s way more obvious it doesn’t deserve the name “designer”. (And I would insist that it does deserve the name god, because what else are you going to call an entity capable of originating an entire universe?)
You might think I’m nuts for considering such a concept of god. You might think any case I could make for thtat god is unconvincing, even preposterous. But whatever case I make for that god is NOT a case for a Designer.
The two are separate concepts. They’re almost always confused for each other over at UD, but there’s no reason for you to be confused here.
There’s also the more-conventional case which is made for god the Fine-Tuner. And unless you automatically define “Fine-Tuner” as synonymous with “Designer” then the two are still separate cases.
There’s an argument that god had to set the controls specifically to give a universe which would, eventually, be hospitable to life. This god was absolutely meticulous in setting the stage (strength of weak/strong nuclear force, gravity, etc.) This does NOT imply that such a god has any interest or plan or design as to what kind of life eventually arises once the stage is set. This god may be perfectly fascinated with watching what different types of organisms come from unguided chemistry and unguided evolution on its billions of different planets. This god may be self-aware that, if it interferes and “designs” life, it will end up stuck repeating the design modules it already knew would succeed, and would lose the freshness of chance outcomes. This god may hope that each world surprises with extravagent variation beyond its own imagination. This god doesn’t enjoy the name of “designer” and is merely the “stage setter”.
Of course, most believers in god-the-Fine-Tuner simultaneously believe in god the Designer of Life. But again, they’re clearly two separate concepts. And if we have any case at all for believing either, it’s two separate cases,
Mung,
It’s more like honey, or for the few Canadians here, maple syrup. 😉
It’s convenient for Mung & IDists to imply anger or ‘screed’ to people who simply have seen through their ideological façade and call them out on it. As someone who has seen the IDM leaders and the DI from up close and personal, I’m in a rather unique position to do this. But their implication is neither accurate nor true.
IDists for the most part aren’t ‘bad people’; they’re just fake revolutionaries, dipped in right-wing evangelical protestant usamerican salt & butter.
Well, since you volunteered that you are a ‘creationist’, it’s up to you to explain. Simply expecting others to guess, however, seems to be a game you like to play alone in your room with people on the internet.
Well, then you would stop – today – being an IDist. If you want to contribute to DI, that’s up to you. Apparently I’m more interested in truth & being fair to fellow theists who reject IDism than you.
So go fund that beach in Seattle if it floats your boat! But stop trying to make it appear that all theists *must* accept IDism (because all theists believe in our Creator), when that is simply not true.
False?! You believe nature is an artefact, do you not, Mung? But as usual, you seem unwilling to answer simple, straight, direct questions like this one & then dance the pity dance as if you are being wronged for even being asked it.
I do believe, Gregory, that I already accepted here at TSZ in a quite recent exchange with you the label CREATIONIST. Do pay attention.
Honey stuck in your keyboard could explain the incessant repetition. When my keys get stuck I replace the keyboard.
Do feel free to start your own thread on Organisms and Artifacts. You have my permission post quotes from statements I’ve made if you think it will help your case.
Patrick,
Yes, there’s a major point that has already been made. And I’m pleased to see some people here have recognised that point and have adopted it into their communication. Imo, it would really help communicative clarity if this distinction catches on, though of course people like Mung have a vested interested to not play along.
It really does make quite a difference if one is speaking about only a ‘designer’ because then human beings as ‘designers’ and ‘manufacturers’ actually *can* be studied. This puts a lie to the protocol adopted by IDist leaders at the DI, which insists by fiat: “There will be no studying or identifying of the Designer in IDT”. Of course, they write Designer with a small d, by a secret CSC regulation for political correctness and because their ‘revolution baby!’ mission eventually aims at putting IDism in public schools.
It is also rewarding to see people using the term ‘IDist’, as quite a few at TSZ have started to do. Even stcordova now uses it as if it is a no-brainer (which pisses off Mung to no end!). Sure, he means something different than what I’ve been writing about IDism for a few years. But it is helpful nonetheless (so look for him now to drop it! ;)) because it is an accurate depiction of what is going on with these people like Mung, WJM, & Robert Byers (also a YECist) who have demonstrated themselves as
fanatical close-minded IDist bigotschallenged by ideological distortion that they refuse to acknowledge.The significant scholarship and orthodoxy behind several key figures who have recognised the distinction between uppercase Intelligent Design (IDT, IDism) and lowercase intelligent design (design theory, argument from/to design) is too solid to be dismissed. This is why UD and radical IDists like Mung & Sal, simply avoid it and hide their thinking behind their computer screens.
Here’s the simple, straight, direct question to stcordova that went unanswered by this disrespectful IDist/YECist persona: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=27622&cpage=1#comment-65057 Why do people at TSZ think he couldn’t or wouldn’t answer?
hotshoe_
Your examples begin from observables. Are you aware of an argument for the existence of God which does not proceed from the things we observe?
Mung,
Attention? Yes, and like a communicative mute, you did not explain yourself. Would you like to explain what ‘creationist’ means to you and why you call yourself that? The onus is not on me to do this for you.
I made very clear my position; no need to pull teeth to get a straight, clear, honest, open answer about it. But no, Mung wants to play games instead!
You’re boring, Mung. Now will you answer the question?
Self-obsessed much? There are actual scholars to quote instead of some internet IDist who has shown little coherence of thought or courage to engage.
Gregory, one gets the impression that you could not stay on topic if your life depended on it. You’ve got a drum to beat and it’s the only beat you know.
Consider taking up a different musical instrument.
If it’s not sensible, then you have no reason to think it’s incoherent. Reminds me all too much of another recent exchange where you didn’t understand what WJM was saying but yet you knew he was wrong.
A far cry from the claim that there is no case.
Mung,
Actually, Mung, look at the first response in this thread (http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=27680&cpage=1#comment-65531). Directly and undeniably on topic. In fact, so ‘on-topic’ that you hide from and avoid it. Yet again…
Like a drum, avoid serious challenges to IDism and return to delirium, Mung!
And please don’t shock people here by talking straight, openly and honestly about why you consider yourself a ‘creationist’. That might simply be too much for some here. 😉
But they’re not arguments for a Designer. That’s what you asked for to begin with: what’s the difference between a case for god v. a case for Designer. So that’s what I gave you. I gave you two specific examples of arguments for god that are not simultaneously arguments for a Designer. Are you satisfied at least that far? Do we have some basic agreement here?
Now, IF you want to imply that all arguments which begin with “things we observe” are automatically arguments “for a Designer”, then you’re just plain wrong.
Unless a person already presupposes that ALL “things we observe” must have by necessity been designed by a big-D Designer (a very fundamentalist position!) … then merely noticing that a grain of sand exists, that a beach exists, that a wave exists, implies absolutely nothing about whether a Designer exists.
IF you’re just idly curious as to whether I’m aware of any possible case for god which does not “proceed from the things we observe” … Pointless. Boring. Stupid. I cannot imagine anything less interesting than somebody’s airy-fairy concepts of god which are not even tangential to our observable universe.
Honestly, under god’s blue heaver! What would be the point in imagining the bare existence of a deity which had never once touched upon our universe!
When I want to mentally masturbate, I’ve got lots better fantasies than that.
If you want to argue that the word “material” does not apply to forces that’s fine. But in that case there is not a single scientist in the world who is a materialist.
If something can accelerate mass it is a force. If you want to argue that there is a special force called “mind” that can accelerate mass, and was responsible for moving the requisite nucleotides, for example, around in such a manner, as to give an ancestral bacterium flagella it would not have had if the forces acting on it had been merely the ones we know about, then you need to demonstrate that this force exists.
And to stop calling the people you like to refer to as “materialists”, and instead “mind-is-not-a-forcists”.
Which is a better name actually. Well, it’s klunky, but a much more accurate description of the view you disagree with.
hotshoe_
Perhaps I misunderstood your argument.
I thought you were saying that there are arguments [cases] for the existence of God which do not proceed from observables. Therefore, there are arguments [cases] for the existence of God which cannot be equated with a case for a designer.
Are you aware of any arguments for the existence of God which do not proceed from observables?
But now you seem to be saying that there are arguments for the existence of God which do proceed from observables but which do not entail a designer. I’m just asking, such as? Most people I can think of would associate the fine-tuning argument with design. I’m surprised that you do not.
Indeed.
And what would be the point in imagining the bare existence of a deity which had never once touched upon a being capable of even contemplating the existence of that deity?
LoL!
Could you please at least try to do better? Who is it, exactly, that you think maintains that mind is force? mind is not a force. ok. so what?
What do you consider the topic in your OP above is, exactly?
Lizzie seems to have made the point that there are no effective arguments for a “Designer” of life and you seem to think that because people make bad arguments for a “Designer” of life, this makes Lizzie “disingenuous”. Is that it?
The distinction lies in the nature of the argument. The ID argument, and I quote from the UD Resources page < href=http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/>ID defined is:
This definition of ID, which I believe was written by William Dembski (I seem to recall it dates from his ownership), tells us that ID is a view that a very specific case, i.e. that certain patterns indicate that they were designed by a designer, whether that designer is human or animal or alien or unknown,
And It makes that case for biological organisms, and claims that this case can be tested scientifically.
I disagree with both these arguments.
Firstly, I do not think that the kind of pattern ID proponents in general, and Demski in particular, thinks indicates design, does so. I think it indicates something broader: that the thing was generated by an iterative feedback process, which could include an intelligent designer, but need not. Moreoever, some intelligently designed patterns do not possess this property. So to take such a pattern as indicative of a designer as cause will produce both false positives (things produced by iterative feedback processes that are not intelligent design processes) and false negatives (things produced by designers that do not possess this property). If we want to find out whether something was designed or not (a SETI signal for instance) I think we need to do more than simply look at the properties of the pattern. We need to take other factors into account, and we need to hypotheses something the designer herself and her properties – her location, for instance, and her methods and powers. For instance, one thing that SETI is looking for these days is a laser signal focussed on us. That is based on the hypothesis that if there are alien intelligent beings in the universe, they may be looking for others, have spotted Earth as a life-bearing planet, and have focussed a laser on us to let us know they are there. If we were to find such a laser beam it could of course have a non-intelligent origin, but one currently unknown (just as Jocelyn Bell’s quasars turned out to have a then-unknown non-intelligent origin). So the next step would be to track the origin of the beam and see if it came from a candidate life-bearing planet. If it did, that would be strong indication that it may have an intelligent source.
Secondly, I disagree not only that we can make a case that biological organisms were designed, specifically, by an intelligent designer, for reasons given above (I do not think the pattern the possess is uniquely attributable to intelligent design), but I think it is only testable, a la SETI, if ID is prepared, as SETI is, to hypothesises something about the designer (e.g. that it is a life form based on a planet, and is looking for us using lasers).
Therefore, I think, as I said to William, possibly too allusively to stand as a comment out of context, I do not think the ID case holds up. I think it is undermined by [ETA: the lack of] any evidence for the putative designer – no hypothesis about what the designer was trying to do, how she was doing it, what her capacities were, etc. All these things are key to scientific design detection in forensics, archaology and SETI, but totally ignored by ID proponents. And while most ID authors are reluctant to bring in “God” as the putative designer, the fact is that if the putative designer is omniscient and omnipotent, then any hypothesis about her will be completely untestable. You cannot test a hypothesis about a cause if it the putative cause absolutely no constraints. You cannot say “if God, this, else that” because an omniscient omnipotent God could perfectly well do that.
ON THE OTHER HAND…
There are many metaphysical cases for God. As I said, I find none of them persuasive, but they are not empirical, so I cannot say they are wrong. I just don’t find them persuasive. I do not find them necessary to account for good, evil, consciousness, purpose, free will, or, even, the fact that there is something rather than nothing, given that what we now seem to know about space-time renders the very concept of “nothing” somewhat meaningless. But, as I said, they are not empirical, so they can’t be tested, and are therefore neither provisionally true nor provisionally false, in the scientific sense.
Gregory, if you are truly that interested in whether your labels will stick to me you will surely figure out how to start your own thread on the topic instead of trying to hijack mine.
I AM A CREATIONIST! I AM AN IDIST I AM AN IDIOT! satisfied?
If not, feel free to start your own thread. If you’re offended that I am not according to you the attention you think you deserve, too bad. Try changing your tune.
I thought I set that out quite plainly HERE
Elizabeth, that you disagree with the arguments is not at issue and has never been at issue. The arguments for a designer exist. You admit that the arguments for a designer exist.
Your claim is that “there is no case for a designer.”
I am simply seeking to understand how these two seemingly contradictory positions can be reconciled.
1. There are arguments for the existence of a designer.
2. There is no case for the existence of a designer.
These two statements are not mutually contradictory because …
An argument for the existence of a designer is not a case for the existence of a designer.
Is that your position? Do you have an alternative?
You need to abandon your claim that there are arguments for the existence of a designer, or you need to abandon your claim that there is no case for the existence of a designer, or you need to resolve the apparent contradiction.
Mung,
I realise this flusters you, Mung. Perhaps finally you’ll take some medicine for your decrepitating IDism? You are now busy labelling yourself, yet without buckling-up to tell what those labels mean TO YOU. Why not? Cat got your tongue in your own thread?
Repeat: Actually, Mung, look at the first response in this thread (http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=27680&cpage=1#comment-65531). Directly and undeniably on topic. In fact, so ‘on-topic’ that you hide from and avoid it. Yet again…
The claim that the case does not hold up is substantially different from the claim that there is no case.
Do you now say that there is in fact a case [perhaps even more than one case] for the existence of a designer, but you don’t find these cases compelling because you think they are undermined by evidence for the designer?
The ID case does not hold up because it is undermined by any evidence for the designer. Classic.
NOBODY here is denying that ‘designers’ exist. Human beings ‘design’ things. Please pause & take a deep breath to digest that, Mung.
We *are* designers…but ‘we’ didn’t ‘design’ & ‘manufacture’ the OoL, cosmosphere, biosphere or ‘intelligence’ itself. What your IDism requires is uppercase Intelligence. Why not simply admit this, like Phillip Johnson, the founder of the IDM, did in promoting supernaturalism?
Just like any 1st yr student in science studies learns (but which Mung seems to be trying his damnedest not to understand or comprehend), one must ask: Which designer/Designer? Whose designer/Designer? Mung and his IDist cronies simply can’t or won’t allow themselves to face these questions, by fiat!
This thread has become a laughing stock symbol of the uncourageous, double-talk, shallowness and hollowness of IDism as preached by the right wing evangelists at the DI, voiced here by their willing mouthpiece, Mung.
There are people who are convinced about the existence of a “Designer*” Whether they started out thinking so due to being convinced by arguments is debatable. There are no effective arguments for the existence of a “Designer”. Contra-evidence would be indications that people who don’t need the idea of a “Designer” are swayed by such arguments.
What do you consider the case for a “Designer”? Why not just be clear that you mean the Catholic version of God? “Designer” is egregious equivocation.
*”Designer” being something or other necessary for the existence of terrestrial life or the universe or everything.
Preach it brother Gregory!
Hide it behind ignorance & repeated avoidance, Mung!
You are asking theists that calmly and carefully reject IDism to respect you, who actively in protest disrespects them with your (‘revolution, baby!’) ideology. Why?
This is a substantially different claim from the claim that there are no arguments for the existence of a designer. If not, why not?
Start your own thread, Gregory. Why not?
Answer the questions that destroy IDism, Mung. Why not? Because you’ve tied IDism too tightly together with your theology/worldview. It’s sad, but not uncommon in the toxic IDM.
Healing for you can happen, Mung. But you need to start reading & interacting with new people, including theists that thoughtfully and faithfully reject IDism (an ideology that you also still have not acknowledged).
Are you literally blind not to see that Alan Fox (intentionally) capitalised ‘Designer’, while you used an uncapitalised ‘designer’? These are *not* the same things. Why can’t you simply admit that?
That you can’t or won’t face the designer/Designer distinction; take it to your pillow tonight and dream about why not. Your ideology is empty once you finally face it. stcordova is well ahead of you, yet likewise in his own USAmerican lala-land of creationist fantasy.
I suspect there is a typo there. I agree the phrase ” I think it is undermined by any evidence for the putative designer” doesn’t make sense. I’m guessing Lizzie meant to say something like:
Which is true as until someone in the ID movement proposes a hypothesis that makes some prediction about the “Designer”, whether evidence supports or falsifies such a (hypothetical 🙂 ) hypothesis cannot be stated.
Mung,
Why, no offence I’m sure. Though to be fair it was WJM who brought it up, specifically in the context of designers, ‘smoking guns’ and such. We can discuss design, but not assumed evidence for it. Got it.
Yes, that’s a typo. Sorry. Your emendation is correct.
You do, of course, also agree, Elizabeth, do you not, that there *is* evidence for human ‘designers’? That’s doesn’t seem like an issue for you, as it is still for Mung. Rather, you disbelieve in a/the ‘Designer.’
Of course there is evidence for designers! I’d even say that it is perfectly possible to look at a candidate artefact and infer that a designer produced it.
What’s I’d say, though, is to do so, as people do in forensics, archaeology, and SETI (as ID proponents like to point out), you need to test hypotheses about the designer.
Hypothesising a designer with omniscient and omnipotent properties is inherently untestable. It’s functionally equivalent to saying “it must have been a miracle”. It’s got nothing to do with inferring an actual designer.
I see Mung has posted my typo at UD.
It did indeed make no sense as written (nor did it reflect what I was quoting myself has having said).
I wonder if that means that Mung thinks that what I actually meant to say does make sense.
To me, that would refer to a Designer, not a designer. The capitalisation or lack thereof serves a specific purpose. How about for you?
I’m trying to understand why sometimes you capitalise Designer, while at other times you don’t, Lizzie, No clear or explainable pattern seems yet to emerge.