[tacticalogic]

Of course, by definition he cannot be speaking for scientists who believe in supernatural creation so your point, while technically accurate, is misleading and irrelevant. You have a couple of choices to prove him wrong. 1. You can show that science is not based on the philosophy of naturalism or 2. you can show that ID is considered science. Either one of those possibilities would invalidate Lewontin's statement.

If Lewontin is correct, and all scientists have an a priori committment to philosophical naturalism, the no one who believes in supernatural creation is a scientist.

If people who believe in supernatural creation can adopt the necessary methodological naturalism to be good scientists without also adopting philosophical naturalism then Lewontin is wrong.

Pick one.

[GourmetDan]

"If Lewontin is correct, and all scientists have an a priori committment to philosophical naturalism, the no one who believes in supernatural creation is a scientist."

Ah, the fallacy of division. Nice move.

"If people who believe in supernatural creation can adopt the necessary methodological naturalism to be good scientists without also adopting philosophical naturalism then Lewontin is wrong."

And then, the fallacy of false cause. Even better.