Science doesn't disprove God, what science does is prove there isn't a need for God.
A theists might say, "God is in the gaps" or "God directed evolution" and they will point to something like the eyeball as an example where nature required God's intervention to make happen and science relies on God to explain it. However, science CAN explain the progression of evolutionary changes that became the eyeball, and further can show that these follow a progression that didn't require a designer. So, this now leaves the theist in a difficult position, the 'gap' they were using as evidence for God is now closed, do they now accept that God ISN'T required? or do they reject the science that is backed by evidence?
In the end, if there are no more gaps, where does that leave God?
So, the theist now responds, "God gives a purpose to these things." The implication being that God answers the question, "why are we here." However, once again, science then asks (going all the way back to Darwin), "why did God create a parasitic worm that causes blindness in children?" The theist is quick to give God credit for all of the 'pretty' things in the universe, but forgets that actually, most of nature wants to kill us, and each other.
In the end, the purpose of life is to live.