Google seems to indicate that Albert did indeed believe in Something.
And then came this prickly statement. . .
Anyone could put together a nice little polemic piece to sway Einstein’s belief either way, but that would be silly. What concerns me is that Einstein, like most good scientists, would undoubtable have left room for doubt.
I have found that it is folly to believe in something 100% because you just never know what new information may come to light. This is the nature of science, and it is this auto-correct system that forms its bedrock. It is also the archilles heel of every mainstream religion: an inability to concede even an iota of ground on a belief (say creation), when the evidence for its opposite is over-whelming. I believe in evolution to the tune of 99%. I concede that evolution could quite well be flawed, but for now it makes for a more credible version of reality than genesis.
This 1% room for doubt makes me an agnostic (leaning towards atheism), but always available to open my heart to the concept of god.
I am surprised that Christians have not presented evolution simply as god’s method of creation, and ended the discussion right there. Look, they would have to follow that up by accepting that the bible was written by men, not god. But could they not cut a little slack and suggest that these men were truly inspired, but writing as ordinary mortals, viewing extraordinary events?
That way they could keep the core message of the bible and neatly explain away the Book of Leviticus as the ramblings of a mad man.