Your subjective/objective contrast makes no sense. Most scientific advances are a combination of mathematical modeling--in the realm of the theoretical--and observation--which is what I meant by "as we see it."
I am aware that what we see are what are called the phenomena, and that a certain amount of work is necessary to get beyond that to underlying realities. This looks like a solid table in front of me, but it can also be understood scientifically as a collection of atoms, electrical charges, particles, and so forth. Still, we start with what we see, the table, and the elements from which it is made.
In terms of subjectivity vs. objectivity. Yes, we do start with what we see. But you need to quantify and organize information apart from what we see. There is no way to objectively measure design. How would we even begin to go about it? That's why ID cannot succeed as science.