"The evidence is objective to begin with."
The only way we can arrive at objective evidence is by testing the evidence. The only way we can know if something is objective is by having more than one person examine it.
"We do our best to objectively test it, and repeat those tests. From those tests we draw subjective conclusions and inferences."
No, YOU draw subjective inferences. Scientists draw objective ones.
"Subjectivity cannot be entirely removed from the human observer."
That doesn't mean objectivity can't exist in our decisions. You are claiming that subjectivity is the basis of all knowledge claims in science. This is nonsense.
You're making a circular argument. The evidence is objective, and it can even be objectively tested on a repeated basis. But the inferences and conclusions made by the observer on the basis of those tests depends upon the biases and assumptions of the observer. Those biases ands assumptions are subjective. They are created by the observer, not by the evidence. The evidence does not change itself or make assumptions about itself. The one observing the evidence does.
You are claiming that subjectivity is the basis of all knowledge claims in science.
This is nonsense.