>To try to equate religion with science is the fallacy of false equivalency.<

No, what is 'false equivalence' is pretending that 'spiritual reality' is equivalent to 'reality'.

In reality, there are no spirits.

N_J

I don’t know that Einstein said that about entanglement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance

What he did address can easily and meaningfully be applied to entanglement though.

Entanglement does not just refer to two objects. It deals with the quantum mechanical wavefunction of two objects, so the objects have to be elementary particles. At least, no one can work out how it would play out for macroscopic objects. At any rate, entanglement is the result of a mixed wavefunction. Perhaps you have heard about Schrödinger’s Cat? Its state between death and life is such a mixed wavefunction.

One intended purpose in information technology aims at unbreakable encryption. Another at faster computing. The spooky action at a distance comes in from the mixed wavefunction not changing during the travel to a far away place. If one keeps the counterpart with whom the messenger particle’s wav3function is mixed, then one can manipulate the far away particle instantaneously via manipulating the counterpart one has kept nearby.

The original spooky at a distance was reserved for fields mediating force.

I know that the two slit experiment has been done for a number of particles. I am not aware that it was done on larger molecules. The question is a good one though: when does macro start? The answer in a sense is: nowhere specifically.

Zeilinger’s entanglement did originally deal with very small assemblies of particles and the averaging did already lead to quantum behaviors being extinguished. In Quantum Computing, entanglement within molecules like the coffee molecule were used.

https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.456079567.7260/ap,550x550,16x12,1,transparent,t.u1.png

Those are pretty big suckers. Particles do not just “do” waveicle things, they are such. 
Schrödinger’s Cat is anything but a demonstration how nonsensical it is to talk about dead versus alive, it illustrates what the quantum mechanical rules of the universe actually ARE. 

The thought experiment’s effect is so b3cause of the radioactive decay that kills the cat with a certain probability, not because of some weird property of the cat.

>Particles do not just “do” waveicle things, they are such.<

Until they're not, by being part of macro-objects, like bowling balls and animals.

I don't think they've gotten a bacterium to produce a wave-pattern in the 2-slit apparatus.  Would it survive being a 'smear of probability', or would that destroy it as an organism?

"Schrodinger constructed his imaginary experiment with the cat to demonstrate that simple misinterpretations of quantum theory can lead to absurd results which do not match the real world. Unfortunately, many popularizers of science in our day have embraced the absurdity of Schrodinger's Cat and claim that this is how the world really works." (https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/07/30/what-did-schrodingers-cat-experiment-prove/)

N_J

No, those balls are all waves too. Standing waves, to be precise.

The situation with the cat is more complex than that quote suggests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger%27s_cat
 

It comes down to where you stand on the Copenhagen Interpretation. Most physicist stand firmly behind it in a practical-thinking kind of way, because it is what gives us all these results that make things like computer chips possible. Some newer research explores other ways:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/this-twist-on-schroedingers-cat-paradox-has-major-implications-for-quantum-theory/
“…  proponents of most quantum interpretations will not lose any sleep. Fans of retrocausality, such as himself, have already made peace with superdeterminism: in their view, it is not shocking that future measurements affect past results.“