In general I wouldn't qualify engineers as scientists. A Ph.D. in science is a course of training and aprrenticeship in research. If lack that training, you lack a qualification.
I find it significant that so any anti-evos are engineers or programmers, and so few are actual scientists.
A few evos are too.
In general, I would not either. However, a Ph.D. in engineering (such as I hold) may also involve a "course of training and an apprenticeship in research." And many Ph.D. engineers are engaged in research that differs not at all from what their colleagues in the pure sciences do.
I find it significant that so any anti-evos are engineers or programmers, and so few are actual scientists.
Well, I have not done a survey of "anit-evos" to know whether this is true or not. Either way, this criticism does not apply to me because I am not an "anti-evo."
Speaking as a qualified engineer who makes his living as a programmer I'd suggest that plenty of evos are also engineers and programmers. Any engineer who had courses like the ones that I studied for my Civ Eng major would have to have been asleep to be continuing to give YEC in particular any credence. My undergraduate understanding of geology, hyrdraulics, and soil mechanics is quite sufficient for me to be able to dispose of AiG style arguments from my own personal knowledge, in most cases. Given the nature of debating sites like FR I'd suggest that the large number of engineers/programmers in this debate is simply a matter of self-selection; such people are the most likely to be computer-literate enough to be comfortable debating on the internet.