Once again, no. I take Lewontin's statement and compare it to the observable foundation of scientific theories and the reaction to the concept of ID. I find that Lewontin's statement is correct on that basis, not on the basis of who Lewontin is or whom he is or is not speaking for.
"Either that, or you're wanting to draw conclusions about science based on what could very we be nothing more than the self-absorbed musings of an over inflated ego assuming that all scientists must be just like him."
This argument would represent the fallacy of the false dilemma combined with the fallacy of appeal to authority. Whenever I see multiple fallacies being combined into an 'argument', I know that there is no objective basis to the statement. It's just rhetoric.
Then the statement can only be correct with regard to the scientists that Lewinton does speak for, and for all we know that is only himself. There's no evidence he's qualified to speak for anyone else.
He could be the only scientist with this a priori committment to philosophical naturalism, and the rejection of ID by other scientists due to issues involving methodological naturalism.
You can submit that Lewinton rejects it because of this, but you have no factual basis to submit that anyone else does. Examination of the actual metaphysical beliefs of all scientsts shows the common belief that Lewontin claims is simply not there.