Line	Mr. Ennis	(Attorney for the ACLU):
	Q	You tried to find some and had not found it—
	A	Well, I was reading what other people said— . . . [inaudible].
	Q	You testified in your direct examination—I think you will quite candidly acknowledge—that you had what you described as a biased perspective—that you were interested in finding evidence if it exists.
	A	Yes.
80	Q	And your question was, did my religious belief have any evidence in science, this is what I was very much interested in [inaudible]. [p. 307]
	A	Absolutely, yes.
	Q	And didn't you then decide that the only way you could rationally live with yourself would be to undertake a research project to determine if there was evidence to support your belief(s) in Genesis?
	A	I think this is true.
	Q	So you began your research into radiohalos as a result of your inquiries into the Bible and of becoming a Seventh-day Adventist.
	A	Absolutely.
	Q	Is it fair to say that the last person before you to do any substantial work on radiohalos was Henderson in 1939?
	A	I think so, yes.
	Q	The research you do is very specialized and requires quite sophisticated equipment including ion microprobe, microprobe spectrometers, cyclotrons, and other equipment like that, does it not?
100	A	Well, initially all you have to have is a microscope, a razor blade, and a piece of rock. That's all it takes to find the halos. Now, to actually demonstrate the experimental support for what I've said, you do need sophisticated equipment. But Henderson identified the polonium halos basically only with the, only with using the microscope.
	Q	Dr. Gentry, let me ask you this. Are you aware of any changes in the constancy of alpha decay or beta decay rates that have been identified experimentally?
	A	No, I'm not. At the present time, no.
	Q	You testified to some extent about singularities. You said that singularities were something that could not be explained on the basis of known physical laws.
	A	This is how I formulate the hypothesis of the Big Bang versus the creative event.
	Q	Given our current understanding, would it be fair to say that the singularity would have to be thought of as an extension of natural law?
	A	I think that's fair. Yes.
	Q	Is it your present opinion that there is no physical process short of a singularity which could cause any significant alteration of radioactive decay rates?
120	A	Yes, I agree with that.
	Q	You believe the occurrence of a worldwide flood was the result of such a singularity or extension of natural law, do you not?
	A	Yes, let me qualify and say that when I say extension of natural law, what I am basically saying is the processes in operation at that time were above and beyond what we normally consider today. Yes.
	Q	And you believe that those processes were caused by the direct intervention of the Creator? [p. 308]
	A	Yes, I do.
	Q	In 1976, you published a paper suggesting that there was evidence for primordial superheavy elements—
	A	Yes.
	Q	And because that paper questioned more conventional understandings, it did receive wide notice, did it not?
140	A	Well, now the reason that the paper on primordial, primordial superheavy elements elicited a lot of interest is because people had been looking for and had spent a lot of money looking for superheavy elements for 10 years at least. And so whenever I said anything about superheavy elements, it was like ringing a bell all over the world—it wasn't necessary that it had to be primordial, although—
	Q	Well, let me ask it this way. If the existence of primordial superheavy elements had been confirmed, that would have required drastic revisions of many existing ideas concerning nucleosynthesis and nuclear theory, would it not?
	A	This was generally understood to be the case, depending on what element it was.
	Q	When your data was re-examined using more sensitive techniques, it was found that superheavy elements were not present, is that correct?
	A	Well, the techniques that we used to re-examine—actually the original results were made, of course, using protons, and the people who did—