"if we understand science to be a form of knowledge or consistent practice that brings tangible results. Jesus' healings, as recorded, were certainly consistent and tangible."

You are missing a few key words in your understanding of science that may alter this viewpoint. So let's add:
"testable explanations"
"reliable predictions"
and just for fun:
"formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses"

Now lets look at the second part of this sentence:
"consistent - always acting or behaving in the same way"
"tangible - definite; not vague or elusive"

I'm not sure even the most faithful believers of Jesus would argue that the recorded accounts of his "healings" fits this definition.

In summary, what a load of BS!

It is much more likely that Kent Brantly survived due to the better standard of care provided to him due to his personal (relative) wealth and that of his country.

Perhaps also because he received a blood transfusion from a 14-year old boy who survived an Ebola virus infection followed by treatment with ZMapp. However, this is simply a hypothesis that needs to be tested before we can make reliable predictions. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure god is the one responsible for ebola in the first place!

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature13777.html
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/Supplement_1/S18.long

The problem with you Stezza, is that you can't distinguish an article of "science" from one which is "poetic" in nature. :-) A lovely piece by Monica which should be read in the spirit in which it is written.

And, there will be lots of readers who will appreciate the poetic (call it "theological" or "metaphysical" if you wish) stance in which she deals with one man's survival from a brutal and deadly killer. No need to put the boot in, mate... just enjoy the elevated experience that some call "faith" as they deal with the harshness of life's realities. Cheers! :-)

Have to agree with Stezza, and can only add; maybe God and science are one and the same thing?
Clearly we didn't invent ourselves, or many of the advances made by so called science.
All of which, first made their presence felt as an invisible/untouchable idea, in this or that head!
And if there were a God, how else would he/she communicate with man, except through the unconscious thought process!?
It seems some of our very best ideas, mysteriously come to us in our dreams, or while in deep meditation!
Or put another way, our best breakthrough advances often come to us while the "rational" conscious mind is sleeping!
And it has been so since the dawn of time!
Not for nothing is it writ large, what the mind of man, can conceive and believe, the mind of man can achieve!
Rhrosty.

There's a gaping hole in the middle of this little piece, where such rational concepts as thinking, learning from experience, mathematics etc. ought to sit.

Thinking: Dr Brantly was flown from Liberia to intensive care in the US. This is likely to have had a significant effect on his chances of recovery. This factor was not mentioned.

Learning from experience: the experience of the US medical community provided him with a new drug, ZMapp. This is likely to have had a significant effect on his chances of recovery. This factor was not mentioned.

Mathematics: of the 2,500 deaths so far, none has been a) flown to the USA for treatment and b) given ZMapp. There is therefore an extremely strong correlation between getting rapid, skilful and courageous medical attention, and the survival rate.

Only a mind totally detached from reality, and preferring - for whatever reason - to believe in the power of abstract concepts, can dedicate his survival to prayer.

Intriguingly, Mr Brantly is not one of them:

"'Thank you for bringing me home when I was sick,' Brantly said, going on to describe the intense pain and emotional isolation he felt as he struggled to recover in a Liberian Ebola ward."

After acknowledging the obvious, that it was the evacuation that saved his life, he remains intensely practical...

"Brantly urged fellow healthcare professionals to consider traveling to West Africa to lend their skills in the Ebola outbreak.

Somewhat tellingly, he did not advocate sending an army of chaplains armed with prayerbooks.

"'If we do not provide education and protective equipment to caregivers, we will be condemning countless mothers, fathers, daughters and sons to death simply because they chose not to let their loved ones die alone,' Brantly said."

I'm with Dr Brantly. Send the army. Send nurses. Send medicine. Praying to the God whom those who do the praying also (I assume) determine was responsible for the existence of the disease in the first place seems not only perverse, but quite insulting.

Is he a Catholic? miriacles are prevalent in that organisation.

'The Sydney Morning Herald article asks why Brantly arrogantly assumed that God deemed him more worthy of saving than the 1400 people who have died of the disease. '

The Sydney morning Herald journalist are the arrogrant ones for being stupid enough to question God's right to do what He wants. If He chooses for one to live another dies what right has a created puny journalist to question their Maker. Pathetic really. You can be sure the progressive fools asking such a question think they are gods themselves.