As a person who is red/green color blind, I spent much of my young life dealing with the disadvantages of this condition. When I joined the Army, my career choices were greatly reduced. When I tried to join the sheriff's department as a deputy, I was soundly rejected. As a young electrical engineering student during the infancy of computers, I was urged by my college hierarchy to switch to logistics.

But these are modern human constructs. Not nature, and not related to evolution. However, I read an article several years ago that addressed color blindness in an interesting way. Many animals are color blind. These animals, in many cases, are among the most capable creatures on earth.

I myself had always noticed that I had unusually good hearing, a ridiculously good sense of smell, and an uncanny ability to make out details in visually cluttered environments. For example, a group of friends and I, as teens, left our tiny hometown and went to a nearby city for some reason. We had never been there and were looking for a McDonald's to get some of those newfangled chicken nuggets we had heard about. We drove down a street through an intersection and could see to our right that the road was absolutely jammed up for blocks with businesses and restaurants. Our driver kept going to the next street and I asked if he was going to turn back and go to the McDonald's. He said there was none on that street and I had to assure him that there was one. We went back and turned, and neither he or the other three in the car could see the sign yet. We drove about four blocks before anyone else could see the sign that I had seen at a glance from blocks away while in a moving car.

Back to that article. The author surmised that the human incidence of color vision deficiency may in fact be an evolutionary step for humans to make us more able to survive in a world where we seek to find prey and avoid predators. According to him, CVD compels people to rely less on color and more on clarity of detail and relative movement. It explains why I was able to make out the McDonald's arches on a visually cluttered street from so far away.

This evolutionary advantage would obviously help me to survive if I were ever lost in the wilderness and had to lead my tribe to a source of french fries and McRibs.

Shouldn’t a scientist be able to explain what another scientist meant?

“Science without religion is lame;….” Albert Einstein

If this is true, how can science be right about the theory of evolution or the planet being 35 million yrs old?

What are you on about? Of course a scientist can explain what other scientists claim provided they are of the same discipline.

So what does that mean when a scientist isn’t in line with “same discipline” you propagate here.

Here he is hinting on a law which applies to your theory and must be obeyed, "We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein

What is your understanding of this law?

Not sure what sort of point you are trying to make with that quote.

That said, it does appear as though the universe operates according to certain “rules” or underlying realities which we don’t yet fully understand. Trying to get a deeper understanding is precisely what science is about.

Well, couldn’t that be what Einstein is referring to when he says “science without religion is lame” that there is a higher order which can educate us to what science is still looking for or whether what science is right or wrong of what they have already claim?

Considering that Einstein was an atheist, I doubt it. Moreover what you say goes against the very ethos of science, which is that we ourselves can discover what is true and false by applying the scientific method.

Also, even if that is what Einstein meant, that still wouldn’t make it true. Unlike his theories of relativity, there is no evidence backing that up.

Perhaps he was an atheist at one time, but his quote makes it clear that he isn’t. I too was an atheist but not anymore. It was this quote that inspired me to move on.

He speaks of law that the universe is governed by, and that is the only way science can know what is true or false. He further says even a dim understanding of this law is not enough and that is what makes science lame.

Does science know anything of this law?

If you read your second quote in its full context, it is still doubtful whether Einstein was religious. The main point of his essay is that science and religion are concerned with two different things, reality and morality, if you will. He is not saying that science needs religion to progress. Even if he was, that would not make it true.

Does science know anything of this law?

You’ve misunderstood. There is no one law that “governs the universe”. We have observed several laws of physics, however many believe that there are more fundamental laws or realities underlying these that we have yet to discover. Note that this does not imply anything about a supernatural entity or creator.

“it is still doubtful whether Einstein was religious”
How about now, is still doubtful? "Philosophy and reason will remain the most beautiful sanctuary they have always been for the select few." Albert Einstein

Science may not need this religion to progress, but it definitely can needs it to validate a theory, especially evolution.

That’s what this religion is capable of, explaining the two laws ( laws of nature which governs the physical world & law of karma which governs the spiritual world) and both implying a creator.

No, that is not what Einstein was saying. His point was that religion is concerned with moral “truth” while science is concerned with reality. There is nothing that religion can contribute to scientific theory.

Of course, even if that were what Einstein was saying, it wouldn’t make it true.

Are you sure that is what he is saying? Whom do you think is in a better position to answer what he is saying, you or me?

"We owe a lot to Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made." Albert Einstein

Here is the religion is referring to.

Whom do you think is in a better position to answer what he is saying, you or me?

I’d say I am because:

I’m willing to read his quotes in their full context
I’m not desperate to use Einstein’s name and prestige to push my narrative. At the end of the day, I don’t care what Einstein said, it still wouldn’t make your assertion true.

I’m willing to read his quotes in their full context
He also had much to say about reading!

"Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking." Albert Einstein

This is how I came to know the truth, because what is important is to know our purpose here.

And yet, for someone who purports to “use his own brain” more than others, you consistently fail to present a coherent argument.

My argument would be based on the laws of nature, of which, you’ve no idea on how they work. We have to start somewhere and I suggest you start here (Evolution Debunked), and that is if you have the desire to do so.