The author talks about the fact that Computer Science is useful to real science and understanding the natural world – fine, but kind of irrelevant. Same is true

The author talks about the fact that Computer Science is useful to real science and understanding the natural world – fine, but kind of irrelevant. Same is true for statistics, maths, programming, engineering etc., none of which are generally considered a subset of science. What you need is a compelling example of the scientific process of hypothesising, making predictions and collecting data happening within the subject. I'm not seeing that here. Computer Science usually proceeds as theorising from a set of axioms (where your axiom is a Turing machine or a type system, for example). It seems pretty clear to me that that makes it a branch of maths – which is not exactly a criticism of the subject!