This is the objection most Christians fear the most and need to fear the least.
“Science has disproved religion.”
It sounds devastating. It is rarely meant to be. Most people who say it have not personally examined the evidence and concluded that theism is false. They have absorbed a cultural mood, the vague sense that smart people don’t believe anymore, and that science is the reason.
That cultural mood is the actual claim you are answering. Not the philosophy of science. Not the physics. The mood.
What science actually does
Science is a method for investigating the material world by observation, measurement, and repeatable experiment. It is brilliant at this. It has cured diseases, sent probes past Saturn, and taught us that the universe is fourteen billion years old.
What it does not do, what it cannot do by its own self-imposed rules, is rule on questions outside the material world. Whether there is meaning. Whether persons have inherent dignity. Whether love is a real thing or a chemical illusion. Whether anything exists beyond what can be weighed and measured.
Those are not science questions. They are philosophy questions. The fact that science is silent on them is not evidence that the answers are negative. Silence is silence.
This is the first thing to gently put on the table: “Science is great at what science does. But what part of science specifically do you think disproved God?”
Almost no one has a specific answer. The objection usually dissolves into a few half-remembered ideas about evolution, the Big Bang, or Galileo. None of which actually disprove God.
The three things people are usually thinking of
Evolution. Christians have debated for 150 years how exactly to read Genesis 1, and serious orthodox Christians sit at every point on the spectrum: young-earth, old-earth, theistic evolution. None of those positions denies God. Evolution, if true, would describe a mechanism God used. It does not address whether anything is behind the mechanism. The fact that bread is made by yeast does not disprove the baker.
The Big Bang. Most people don’t realize that the Big Bang theory was originally controversial among scientists precisely because it implied a beginning, and a universe with a beginning is the most theologically friendly cosmology imaginable. The first major proponent of the Big Bang, Georges Lemaître, was a Catholic priest. Far from disproving theism, the standard cosmological model gives the theist exactly the universe they would expect.
Galileo. The Galileo affair is bad and worth knowing the actual history of. It is more about Renaissance politics and personalities than about science vs. religion. But even at its worst, it is one historical conflict, not a refutation of God’s existence.
Where the conversation actually wants to go
After you have gently dismantled the framing, the conversation usually wants to go somewhere more honest. Not “did science disprove God,” but “I find it hard to take Christianity seriously in a modern, scientific world.”
That is a different conversation. It is about culture, plausibility, and intellectual respectability. It deserves its own answer, usually starting with the fact that many of the most rigorous scientists in history (Newton, Maxwell, Mendel, Faraday, and a long list of working physicists today) have been Christians, and that the founders of modern science were specifically motivated by the conviction that a rational God had made an ordered, knowable universe.
But you only get to that conversation by clearing away the false framing first. “Science disproves religion” is not a sentence you have to fear. It is a sentence you have to take apart, kindly and accurately, until the real question underneath it can come out.