As an engineer, this is not really true. Science is about observing the world. Engineering is about changing it. Engineers are not scientists and don't use the scientific method for most of their work. I'm a research engineer, so I use the scientific method to develop engineering methods, but that's pretty niche. Yes, engineers take the basics of science and build on that, but in most fields, as much as scientists would love to claim that every other discipline is just applied science (as Wikipedia does), "applied science" really means two things: "How do I make the theory work in the real world?" and "How do I describe the real world using the theory?" For example, applied mathematics is about implementing numerical methods to solve fancy math with tractable calculations or about looking at a problem and describing it with math. It is the same with statistics and physics, so you end up with many "assume a spherical cow" type solutions. This is most clear in chemistry, where applied chemists often focus on a problem to determine what chemistry is taking place, while chemical engineering is more about making as much of something as possible... There's been almost no new actual science in the last century in civil engineering. This is not true in fields like electronic engineering, where quantum effects are "new."
The analogy I like to use is simple optimization. Science develops a theory of a function and a slope. Applied science tries to work out the slope of some actual function. Engineering asks what the maximum for the function is and tries to make a step up the slope.
So yes, there is some sense in which engineers test scientific theories, in that if the theory says the slope goes up this way, but you find it doesn't, you're going to question the theory, but this is not the goal of engineering.
As a side note: Engineers are also not technicians, as shows like the Big Bang Theory and lots of SciFi shows like to promote...