I can think of two posts where teaching transhumanism in public schools is explicitly advocated. Hence, it is already being thought of.

Christianity says "murder is bad." does that mean saying to kids in public schools "hey, murder is bad" becomes off limits? A similar remark would apply to religions which have correct beliefs about the shape of the world. Note that even if an idea or set of ideas is subscribed to be a religion that's not an intrinsic reason to exclude it from the classroom. That's part of why in the US First Amendment issues are so complicated and difficult.

On a tangent to that note, would it be kosher to grow non-kosher insects in apples as it would be thought they spontaneously generate and are therefore kosher?

No. They believe that some animals can (lice and rodents in particular) can spontaneously generate, not that they in general necessarily do. However, there's actually a serious issue connected to this in that figs often have wasps inside them but this wasn't known in ancient times when figs were first ruled to be kosher (and in fact more than that are explicitly listed as one of the special foods of Israel in the Bible). No one in the Orthodox community has a good answer for this.

Anyways, the point is that the assumption is made that religion is by default irrational when it might actually be rational.

Well, again you are using a very broad notion of religion. The individuals asserting that religion is in general irrational are probably less likely to do so if one is using such a broad definition.

And if one uses a narrow definition of religion, then for most major religions, if any one of them is correct, then the others need to be not just irrational but deeply so. So even in that framework, thinking that most religions are irrational is the rational thing to do.

Some of the greatest philosophers have been highly religious.

So? That's not a good argument for much of anything at all. Newton also believed in alchemy. Erdos had trouble with the Monty Hall problem. Or for that matter, some of the the greatest philosophers have been geocentrists. The fact that some people happened to make great advancements and were religious doesn't say much at all aside from the fact that humans have strong cognitive biases. And many of those great philosophers were by no fault of there own living in ages where a lot of the basic understanding of the world we take for granted war completely missing. If I lived in 1200, I'd think that lightning came from an angry God and that disease had similar causes.

Also, mystical experiences are accepted as fact here as long as they are not religious mystical experiences (see benefits of madness) ( which thing most religions will tell you is very dangerous as there are beings that are wanting to deceive).

The claim is that mystical experiences can be useful not that they are necessarily factual. Speaking for myself, I've had practical math ideas from dreams. I check them when I wake up. Sometimes they are correct, and sometimes they don't quite work and sometimes they are clearly nonsense. (No, subconscious, the fact that Martin van Buren was the 8th President of the United States does not tell me anything about zeros of L-functions.) But that's not a reason think that any such dream is objectively real (Last night I had a dream where I was a powerful sorcerer who was working together with some cyborg elves to stop a terrible demonic menace. I wouldn't mind if that's real.)

It seems here that you are interpreting remarks uncharitably, in trying to find the most negative and most religious interpretation of comments. Indeed, the post in question was made in part in response to a general attitude here that mystical experiences are a complete waste that are not at all helpful in any way.

Note that the difference between a mystical experience which leads to a math idea or leads to the structure of benzene is that the claim is something we can check. The religious mystical experiences very rarely fall into that category. But there's another reason not to take the religious mystical experiences seriously: they all disagree. Every major religion has people who have had mystical experiences and claims that they've encountered their deity or its servants or something similar, and yet they all disagree about very basic parts of how the world works. Indeed, that's probably why some religions claim that there are evil forces out there giving deceptive mystical experiences: one needs some explanation for why every other group has experiences which don't agree.

There are also instances of people claiming they are more rational than Noble laureates which doesn't help the claim that they are rational at all.

Smart is not at all the same thing as rational. I have no doubt that Rober Aumann is smarter than I am. I don't know if which of us is more rational but there's a decent argument that I am. I know I'm not as smart as Kary Mullis and I'm pretty sure that I'm more rational than he is, and for that matter, judging from these conversations, you probably are too. That people here are more rational than some Nobel Prize winners isn't a positive statement about people here as much as it is an interesting statement about how irrational people can be and still do absolutely amazing, incredibly brilliant, highly innovative work.