I first met Jonathan Wells in 2001 at a small public gathering held at Gonzaga University and organized by Father Robert Spitzer, who was developing the Faith and Science Institute there. The attendance was small and the meeting itself seemingly inauspicious. I was just then beginning to explore the world of intelligent design, and wasn’t sure what to expect. But I was motivated to learn more by the recent news of the Smithsonian Institution controversy involving Richard Sternberg and Stephen Meyer. I wasn’t very familiar with the controversy other than knowing this: open dialogue about a controversial subject was being censored. 

I had been taught throughout my science education to stubbornly resist indoctrination. And since I was by that time 22 years out of medical school, I was experienced enough to realize that not everything that we are taught in science stays “true” forever. There was much in medical science and biology that was rapidly changing. So, I found it unconscionable that a publicly funded institution would not allow a free exchange of ideas on a given topic, including the received doctrine of neo-Darwinism. The very fact of such censorship struck me as so highly irregular as to arouse deep suspicion.

What Were “They” Hiding? 

By that time, I was beginning to have serious doubts about how randomness could ever create the complexity of life. So why not allow an open discussion?

Still, I was skeptical. Giving up on the reigning paradigm I had labored hard to study and understand would require an enormous effort on my part. After all, when physicians express doubts about Darwin, we are quickly reminded of that famous remark of Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” 

And so, coming to an ID meeting for the first time, I was wary of being indoctrinated. It was in this setting that I met Jonathan. He was soft-spoken and unassuming, but forthright. He gave a thirty-minute presentation on the complexity of cellular biology which made perfect sense. I could discern no hidden agenda or any attempt at proselytizing. I was both quite pleased and even a little surprised.

What Motivated Him?

Because the meeting was small, it afforded the opportunity to talk one-on-one with the speakers. A graduate of the University of California like Dr. Wells (he received his PhD in biology from UC Berkeley, I received my MD from UC San Francisco), I wanted to get better acquainted with Jonathan. I wanted to try to understand how someone with his impressive academic background could dare to go so far afield. What motivated him? And could someone like me come to be an acolyte of what at the time was in the eyes of so many of my colleagues just a fringe idea. After all, Sternberg was pilloried for his audacity. One had to be cautious about climbing aboard.

What I found in that brief meeting with Jonanthan, which had such an impact on me, was this: honesty, straightforwardness, tolerance and even indulgence of my skepticism. That was just what I needed to continue my exploration of ID. 

I am so very grateful for Jonathan’s dedication and guidance, and the crucial part he played in my own development. Please allow me to join many others in praising his legacy and hallowing his passing.