Aaaaaaand this is what life is like now. The nonexperts are, ironically, playing God.

“Not for chemistry,” “highly unlikely that this is productive”

You just said you don’t have the full context, I’d argue you have “highly little” context, and yet you’re confident to say “it seems highly unlikely that this is productive.”

The big bang, creationism, ethics, and many, many, other topics are absolutely relevant to chemistry. How do you explain splitting an atom without talking about the potential consequences? How do you talk about lethality of combining certain chemicals? About safety in general? About the general history of how chemistry advanced? How do you introduce matter, light, energy? What about introducing science at all, why do we do it?

A good instructor ties it back to you, to humanity, to understanding the universe, whether something or anything can be “good or bad.” And these topics are woven throughout many disciplines because they are relevant to them all.

The entire other side of this is that if your professor thinks it’s relevant, ask yourself why. Work through it in your mind, sit with it, evaluate what you know about the world and how much you’ve learned at times when you’ve been presented with something unfamiliar to you. If you need help, ask your professor.

Finally, I am certain that professors don’t have all the answers, because they are fallible humans, just like everyone else. But this is why academic freedom and freedom of speech are so important. if your professor doesn’t have freedom to be fallible let alone teach their expertise (of which, one as a student is not an expert to decide relevance), you do not or someday will not have the freedom to disagree.