Your argument is a fallacy of appeal to an invalid authority. I’m simply demonstrating that fallacy. He doesn’t and can’t speak for all scientists.
My argument isn't based on the 'authority' of Lewontin, but on the authority of what can be observed, i.e. that 'theories' based on philosophical naturalism are the only form of theory that is allowed in 'science'. Were that not true, then ID would be equally as valid.
Your argument is the fallacy of denying the antecedent because your opposition is based solely on the claim that Lewontin doesn't speak for all scientists, not on any evidence contrary to his statement.