Einstein rejected Quantum Mechanics because he didn't like the idea of things happening on a probabilistic fashion because it rejects design (his belief) and instead implies that things happen because they are what is most likely. Some of that has been described on this thread, but the way light moves, how it reflects and cannot refract like sound, and the very fundamental instability of the universe.
If you're going to disagree with me by saying "hardly" please give an actual example and explain your logic. I know what I'm talking about (at least I think I do, I'm open to being actually shown I'm wrong instead of being rejected in one word -- which I think is pretty offensive), I've taken classes on Quantum Mechanics and I don't feel that you've actually presented any evidence to contradict what I said.
EDIT: The full quote is even more damning:
You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the Quantum Theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one. (Albert Einstein to Max Born, Sept 1944, 'The Born-Einstein Letters')
There was nothing "instinctive" about the dice-players attitude, as he put it, because that's not how science is supposed to work. Instinct is only utilized in formulating ideas that fit that data to test, but the moment that better ideas fit, you're supposed to be objective enough to switch your points of view to them. Einstein's attitude denied evidence and the success of the quantum model because it didn't fit with his views on the nature of reality. I don't see how you can take this as anything but an example of science failing to be properly executed due to the intrusion of faith exemplified in one of the most influence scientists of the 20th century.
EDIT2: And actually, if Einstein had accepted the clearly better theory and helped work on it he would've contributed far more to science in his lifetime. The last 20 years of his life were devoted to working against it, and he never got anywhere.
I don't think you understand the situation Brandon. He was not being asked to choose between his faith and science; ideas were being proposed that he did not agree with on the basis of their conflicting with his theological viewpoints. This was the first half of the twentieth century when even scientists were not atheistic in large numbers. There's no evidence of anyone painting a conflict between science and religion, it's simply that religion didn't like what science was saying, so it made the conflict.
Just... as it did during the Heliocentric model controversy, evolution, and many other times throughout history. As you can see, there isn't really a controversy being manufactured here as much as there is religion not being comfortable with getting facts wrong.