Carina: I've risked my life to come here, to see if the rumors are true. You speak of the Trident?
Henry: Who are you?
C: Tell me why you seek the Trident.
H: The Trident can break any curse at sea. My father is trapped by such a curse.
C: You're aware that curses are not supported by science?
H: Neither are ghosts.
C: So you have gone mad!
This conversation takes place in the 2017 movie "Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar's Revenge". In this movie, obviously, Henry's Father, Will Turner, is indeed trapped by a sea curse, condemning him to sail the seas forever, aiding those who die at sea into the afterlife. Carina Smyth, by contrast, has no direct experience with the supernatural, and is a dedicated scientist, actually being so ahead of her time that she is on the run, having been sentenced to death for "witchcraft".
In the movie, Carina is proven wrong on the existence of sea curses, but actually, there is an error in her logic that applies to the real world: The Reification Fallacy. The Reification fallacy is the fallacy of ascribing concrete attributes to abstract concepts. In this case, science. Science, being an abstract concept, does not speak. Scientists do.
Just as Carina argued that science doesn't support curses, many people in the modern day will argue, until they're blue in the face, that "science doesn't support miracles". But if you were to ask a sufficiently large, random group of scientists if they believe in miracles, you will receive different answers. Some will be equally fallacious and assert that science does not support miracles, while others will affirm, wholeheartedly, that miracles have happened, with some even claiming they still do.
The temptation here would be to demonstrate this further with examples of when science has been wrong. But this would also be the reification fallacy. Science has never been wrong, scientists have. As an example, in 1921, well respected zoologist Theophilus Shickel Painter gave the world the official number of chromosomes in a human cell. By counting the number of chromosomes in a human sperm cell - which was significantly easier to count than in any other body cell - he reasoned that 24 x 2 = 48.
Other scientists, using the same method, drew the same conclusion, but of course time went on, and other methods were used to tell us what we now know: It's actually 46. Notice how at no point did I use the words "science says". This is because at no point did science say anything. Painter didn't descend from a mountain carrying stone tablets, declaring "thus saith science: There are 48 chromosomes in a human cell". Nor did science appear as a burning bush and command anyone "you shall say to Painter, 'let my biology go'". The errors were human, and the correction was human.
Such is the case with miracles. It isn't science saying miracles can't happen, it is people. But there are times when s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶m̶a̶d̶e̶ ̶m̶i̶s̶t̶a̶k̶e̶s̶ scientists have made mistakes. Those same scientists, and those sharing their opinions, have often made science their sock puppet. But as science is an abstract concept, it cannot speak.
One way to expose the reification fallacy is to ask where science said this. You may be handed a book, or linked to an article, all of which tend to have their actual authors prominently listed somewhere. It's not science that says miracles can't happen, it's [insert author here]. Now that we've established that, we can have a fruitful discussion about why he is wrong.