Sorry, pet peeve: pseudo-latin/greek plurals.
Just because the term "Computer scientist" contains the words "Scientist" does not actually make it one. It's a misnomer. Computer scientists are actually either mathematicians or engineers, depending on their specialties.
That's a rather narrow understanding of a fairly broad field of study.
Computer science or computing science (abbreviated CS or CompSci) is the scientific and practical approach to computation and its applications. A computer scientist specializes in the theory of computation and the design of computational systems.
See also: Applied Science
Applied science is typically (i.e., not always) engineering, which develops technology, although there might be feedback between basic science and applied science: research and development (R&D).
R&D, like say, a prototype networked information system that makes data available on "pages" of hyper-linked text -- a "web" of data. The proof-of-concept came first, the engineering came after.
Also, to put it quite simply, scientists do not create things. They just think about things; engineers create them.
People who "just think about things" are called philosophers. Scientists create a great number of things. If such creations are found to have useful properties, someone then figures out how to efficiently produce them in larger quantities. Those people can be scientists or engineers or both, depending on the challenges involved. Other engineers then figure out how to use those creations to make stuff that gets used by other people.
Tim Berners-Lee is a computer scientist. Robert Cailliau is an informatics engineer and a computer scientist. Nicola Pellow was a math undergrad. The Web was created at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) and first deployed to science departments and physics labs like SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) and Fermilab.
So yes, _scientists_ did create the Web.
more female terminators with big boobs that open up to be machine gun cannons or flame throwers.
You know, that doesn't sound bad at all...
True evil is very very rare (about 2% of the population is capable of this, but even orders of magnitude less than these 2% are really out to harm others and abuse nature).
2% is over 70 million people. That's not rare by most definitions. How many people do you know? All it takes is one to ruin lives. Do remember that these people gravitate towards positions of power in corporations and governments. They don't have to be "really out to harm others and abuse nature." The harm and misery they cause is simply collateral damage to them, and they don't care how much harm they cause in the pursuit of their goals.
The core of science is the scientific method, which is a set of mental tools and processes designed to help us figure out the truth and avoid our inherent biases and cognitive limitations. The part that's important to your question is this: extraordinary claims must require extraordinary evidence to be considered valid.
Not even considering the content and supposed provenance of the Christian Bible, just the claim that there is an entity with the qualities and attributes ascribed to the Christian God is an exceptionally extraordinary claim. There is absolutely no independently and empirically verifiable evidence to support that claim. Objectively, any acceptance of the truth of that claim is the same as acceptance of any of a number of similar extraordinary claims, most of which would fall under the categories of myths, legends, superstitions or pseudo-science: faeries, unicorns, elves, UFOs, ghosts, etc. There simply is no rigorously objective, intellectually honest juxtaposition between most major religions and the scientific method. Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot comes to mind.
Personally, I think if one considers oneself a scientist, one must apply the scientific method to all truth propositions, regardless of whether such happen to be in the lab or outside, or whether they fall under one's specialty or not. I suppose it's possible to draw a line somewhere and say "Here I'll apply the scientific method and there I won't." but given our inherent human fallibility, I think that's a recipe for disaster. Sooner or later, the line will blur and you end up with bad science.
It is now pitch dark. If you proceed, you will likely fall into a pit.