As a disclaimer, I want to explicitly discourage the practice of judging any worldview based on the crazier beliefs of people who hold it. If a heart surgeon believes aliens created the pyramids, I'd still rather trust him than bleed out. Nevertheless, it does seem significant that those who so insist science has disproven Christianity also believe some extremely unscientific things.
First, it should be noted that Christianity is not a scientific faith, nor was it ever intended to be. There are certainly some scientific claims (and indeed, the philosophy of experimental science owes its very existence to Christianity), but Christianity has a much greater focus on the spiritual and the historical than the scientific. What that means is that it focuses mainly on things that cannot be scientifically tested. Claiming science has proven Christianity wrong is like looking into space and claiming that, since whales cannot breathe there, therefore they do not exist.
In that same vein is the origins debate. The origins debate does make some scientific claims. However, much like Christianity, its primary claims are both spiritual and historical. Few Evolutionists will acknowledge this (although some do), but it is a fact. First, Evolution is based on a philosophy called Naturalism. Naturalism, by its very definition, rules out spiritual claims. It seeks to find a natural explanation for all things, even when there is no reason to assume such an explanation can be found. Supernatural explanations are always rejected, regardless of evidence for them.
Second, the whole concept of origins is, by definition, a claim about the past. The origin of a thing, such as the human race, is the beginning of that thing. Because we are talking about past events, we are once again talking about things that cannot be tested by science. These things allegedly happened once, and cannot be repeated, whereas science depends on repeatable results.
Some may object and say that forensic science is also about historical events, yet these events can be tested. The truth is, they cannot be tested. However, using things that can be tested, we can draw conclusions about what can't. For example, we can perform a number of experiments on cadavers to figure out how fast flesh decays under certain conditions. From this, we can say that a murder victim who has reached a certain stage of decay has been dead for X amount of time. Even this can lead to incorrect conclusions if the assumptions behind them are wrong. In the case of origins, assumptions are very often wrong. In fact, Charles Lyell actively lied about the erosion rate of Niagara falls, with the sole intention of claiming it was just 70,000 years old.
Furthermore, forensic science relies on scientific facts we have observed. We have observed cadavers decaying under various conditions. However, we have not observed most of the things that would be required for Evolution. Additionally, some of the things in Evolution have since shown to be, at the very least, highly improbable. Every single one of us can be grateful that explosions do not magically occur without cause, and that life requires pre-existing parents to come into existence. Thus, forensic science and Evolution are majorly distinct.
On the flip side of origins is eschatology. Here, we move from false stories about the past to incorrect predictions about the future. In our modern world, climate change (which was once called global warming) has become a serious concern. Yet, ever since the 70s (even before then), doomsday predictions have failed time and time again (hence the name change). Climate Alarmists, rather than admit defeat, have merely slid back into the shadows, claiming they weren't wrong, they just miscalculated. Compare this with religious doomsday preachers (and believe me, my unbelieving friends, Christians find them just as annoying as you do), who bring a scourge upon the entire Church with every false prediction.
Another big issue of our day is abortion. Although some radical extremists are quite happy to admit abortion kills a child, even to the point of advocating for abortion up to birth, most civilised people base their opinion on abortion on what, exactly, is being killed. If abortion kills a human child, many will oppose it. If abortion kills a "clump of cells" (which, technically speaking, we all are), many will support it.
This fact is so true that people have actually converted from pro-abortion to pro-life in less than 60 seconds just by being shown what happens during an abortion. But sadly, many abortionists are still deceived into believing a baby in the womb is, to quote Richard Dawkins, "less human than an adult pig". And yet, the mere existence of ultrasound technology makes this position untenable. In reality, from the moment of conception, a child in the womb is its own being, with its own DNA. The exact same DNA it will have for as long as it lives. This on top of the obvious fact that, if nothing kills it, the child will grow into a human. If a woman swallows an apple seed, it won't become human. If a pig embryo is implanted into the womb of a human woman, it's not going to turn into a human embryo, it's going to die. Even if it lived, it would be a pig, not a human.
But of course, not all sex leads to pregnancy. There is such a thing as "homosexuality", an act in which two people (or more) of the same gender engage in sexual activity. Because this literally cannot lead to the passing on of genetic material to the next generation, all claims of a "gay gene" should be dismissed immediately just by common sense.
Furthermore, homosexuality has never been an immutable trait. Skin colour often features in these debates. It is said that opposing homosexuality is akin to racism. Yet, whereas people can't just change their skin colour, people change their sexuality all the time. Me, for example. Homosexuality used to be a major part of my identity. I had strong sexual attraction to other men, and was almost offended by the idea of heterosexual sex. This is no longer the case. Through Jesus Christ, I am a new creation, and am living proof that homosexuality is not genetic. When a black person converts to Christianity, they don't suddenly become white (not that they'd even need to, the Bible never says "thou shalt not be black"), but when a gay person embraces Christ, He can help them overcome even their most sinful desires. So the "born this way" argument is about as scientific as the idea that the moon is made of cheese.
What's even more ironic about all of this is that homosexuality, much like reproduction, depends on the binary gender system designed and implemented by God. If men do not exist, men cannot be attracted to other men. If women do not exist, women cannot be attracted to other women. If a man and a woman do not correctly use their fully functioning reproductive system, new human life cannot be created. Even in the exception to that rule (IVF), male and female gametes must be combined, and placed in a functioning female womb. And yet, despite this very obvious, irrefutable, foundational scientific fact, there are people out there who either believe there are more than two genders, or that gender itself is just a social construct. Who would have thought homosexuality could be so transphobic?
Not all opponents of Christianity are this crazy, but people who are this crazy are opponents of Christianity. Those who make the silly claims we have discussed above are always the first to claim Christians are "science deniers". The truth is, Christians don't deny science. Our God invented it. What we do deny is bad/fake science, and the philosophies that cause it.
But the ultimate cause of bad science is sin. Mankind is in constant rebellion against God. And when you rebel against the giver of life, what alternative is there but death? Praise God, He takes no pleasure in this state of affairs. God doesn't want sinners to die, but to repent and live. Nevertheless, someone has to die for sin. There are two choices. The sinner can die for their own sin. You may choose this option. But God has provided a second option: Jesus can die in your place.
See, when Jesus Christ, the Son of God, took on human flesh, He didn't sin. Not even the tiniest white lie. Nevertheless, He died as a sinner. On the cross, Jesus Christ took the full wrath of God for sin, so that all who will confess Him as Lord and believe He rose will be completely forgiven. Science could never disprove such a beautiful truth.