I think what the comment tries to express is the well-trodden "if we can control magic then that makes it science", while the original conversation really was "what if God controls magic".

In that hypothetical, there could be testable proof of "a magic event occurred" without magic becoming part of science.

Sure, and I appreciate the science behind your blank nom de guerre.

That said, in the cut and thrust of conversation and or debate the example by dialogue isn't perhaps as clear cut a device as it may have seemed from your keyboard.

That might just be my reading <shrug>