Chemists, applied physicists, materials research, metallurgy, ceramics, botanists, pharmacology, there's all kinds of other fields of science - and you submit that Lewontin speaks for them all. Not likely.
No, that's the fallacy of appeal to consequences of a belief.
Yes, let's pretend your beliefs don't have any consequences.
I think you are referring the fields of methodological science that do not commit the fallacy of assuming that the existence of natural, physical laws means that philosophical naturalism is therefor true. Those would be the technological and applied sciences. As opposed to the 'sciences' that claim to be able to see back into the unobservable past and concoct just-so naturalistic stories based on an 'a priori' commitment to philsophical naturalism..
"Yes, let's pretend your beliefs don't have any consequences."
Ah yes, you want to assume that Pascal's Wager isn't applicable.