Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Sorry to break the news, but ignorance is oozing out of all of your posts. No, you can't. You have clearly demonstrated a complete cluelessness about evolution.

I am trying to picture archaeologist hammering away meaninglessly on his keyboard.Sorry, it doesn't make sense. Either archaeologist is totally, hopelessly insane, or he is predicting that what he types will be transmitted over the internet and appear in a post at evcforum.I think it's obvious that archaeologist does not have a clue as to what "prediction" means.

You are reading a lot into that verse, that isn't actually there. Just two verses early, Jesus talks about humility. But here you are making demands, and that does not seem at all humble.Nobody is preventing parents from introducing their children to religion. Nobody is suggesting that Marx's view of religion be taught in the schools. I suggest you do a google search for honor killings in the Bible. You might find that it is not at all unbiblical. People may find them more persuasive. However, it is well documented that they are unreliable. You at most have hearsay evidence of that. Those are manufactured scares. Evangelicals manufacture many scares. The one-child policy was in China. It didn't happen here. That has been thoroughly debunked by physics.

And a merry Christmas to you, too.

Biblical Creation is mythology. Mythology is not truth. That's nonsense.Evolution is well supported science. Yes, you can argue about whether it is true, because is based on evidence and pragmatics rather than proof. However, there is no basis whatsoever for saying that evolution is doctrine.The only people who are making "brutal efforts to eliminate everything that represents God from American culture" are the MAGA Trumpians, who mostly claim to be Christian. They are making their version of Christianity so brutally evil that many others are leaving it.Evolution is not opposed to God. There are evolutionary scientists who are Christians.

This is a misunderstanding of science.When scientists investigate an airplane crash, they don't have to repeat the crash to test their conclusions. When scientific methods are used to investigate a crime, they don't have to repeat the crime to test their conclusions.Science does not depend on a repeatability of events. There are lots of non-repeatable events that science studies.What needs to be repeatable, are the methods used within the science. That allows testing of the methodology.