Have you actually read any works by any prominent communicators of science in the last, like, fifty years or something? You keep writing increasingly harsh critiques but offer only polemics and platitudes to support your hostile perspective.
One can want to understand things for many reasons: out of love, out of respect, out of curiosity, out of desire to control, out of fascinated hatred. Science is a method for rationally gaining understanding. The "object" can be an object of affection, an object of disdain, an object of no emotional content, etc..
Harping on a particular interpretation of the word "object" doesn't illuminate anything about science, any more than does claiming that "I love her" objectifies "her" because the word "her" is the object of the sentence illuminates anything about literature.
It's linguistic tomfoolery.
If you engage with actual scientists and actual science, your characterization falls flat almost instantly. It's just not what's going on.
For instance, many doctors practice medicine because they care about people. And those who engage in clinical research (i.e. science) do so precisely because they want to better understand things so they can help people with their challenges better. It's the precise diametric opposite of what you charge, and it's common.
One of the most powerful works ever created, in my opinion, that induces us to treat the natural world as not just a means to be exploited and destroyed is David Attenborough's Life on Earth, which is powerfully scientific throughout; it is because it is scientific throughout, because you see through his eyes an understanding of the whole life process and appreciate it in a depth and breadth you may never have thought to before, that it is moving, that you realize how amazing and how special life is, that you don't just take it for granted.
It is true that knowledge often gives one power to control. And it is true that throughout history, people have been drawn to exercise power for their own benefit without regard for the negative impacts. Kids don't burn ants with a magnifying glass because of science. They do it because they have power. And it's also true that an anamistic spiritual approach tends to render one powerless because it turns out that it's a terrible way to understand how things actually work. (If we had found ourselves in a universe of spirits and gods, it would have been a pretty good way, I imagine. But, oops! We ended up in a mechanistic universe. Oh well!)
But it is not true that animated "objects are tricksters" from a scientific perspective. It is not true that nature "is active and ordered, yes, but not alive"--the alive parts of nature are exactly very much alive and it is science that tells us what that means and even lets us consider the less-than-perfectly-crisp boundary between alive and not. It's not true that the humanist's conviction is that the wilderness has no value akin-to-rights; the American Humanist Society's statement on environmental is a complete and utter repudiation of your statement: https://americanhumanist.org/key-issues/statements-and-resolutions/resolution-on-environmentalism/. Among other things it says, "all life on this planet has intrinsic value and holds the right to access clean air, clean water, and healthy habitats".
It is when you embrace science, not anamism, that you feel as innocent as a child because you continually confront a world of knowledge that is amazing, spectacular, and which you do not have. There is always so much to learn!
It is the mind of an anamist with the tools honed by science that we have to fear most, because there is no awe and no understanding to blunt the superstitious and unthinking application of immense power.
Science does not tell us--not unless we ask it that question specifically--what our attitude should be towards nature. And yet it is human nature to develop an affinity towards what we know, and to discount that which we do not. That science points out that there never was any universal moral law anyway is irrelevant--as shown by science!--because we operate primarily based on moral intuitions. Capitalism and industrialism might blunt those intuitions when applied to nature, but science does not.
I really do not understand why you persist in this objectification-charging crusade to demean and demonize the process of science and the people who engage in it. It is wrong, both factually and morally.
A stained-glass window is no less beautiful when you recognize that it was constructed by an artist. Indeed, you can gain an even deeper experience: you can both be amazed by the skill and appreciate the beauty. So too if you understand the developmental process by which a flower is produced: you can both be amazed by the process and appreciate the beauty.
Your arguments make no more sense than would saying that we need to obscure the fact that all works of art are created by artists--or to stop creating them--because art-as-the-creation-of-artists would simply objectify the art as the crude manipulation of matter by the workings hither and thither of limbs and brains exerting domination over their environment, objectifying the sacred for our entertainment.