No, that would be the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion. Whether others agree with a statement or not has no bearing on its accuracy.
"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."
Were that true, then we would not see science presenting "the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories". Since we do see those things, the argument is not based on an appeal to authority but an examination of the evidence.
Were the strict requirements of methodological naturalism applied to the 'Big Bang', 'abiogenesis' and 'evolution' they would fail due to their foundation in philosophical naturalism. Since they do not, methodological naturalism is not their foundation. It is the fallacy of equivocation and a non sequitur to assume that the existence of natural physical laws means that philosophical naturalism is reality.
"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."
Again, appealing to the 'beliefs of all scientists' is the fallacy of appeal to popularity and is still irrelevant.
It does if that statement submits that it expresses the opinions of others. You can't claim to know what other's opinions are, and then claim their opinions have no bearing on the accuracy of the statement.
Were that true, then we would not see science presenting "the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories". Since we do see those things, the argument is not based on an appeal to authority but an examination of the evidence.
Your quote is an appeal to the authority of the author.
Again, appealing to the 'beliefs of all scientists' is the fallacy of appeal to popularity and is still irrelevant.
And again, I'm not the one appealing to the "beliefs of all scientists". You are doing that by submitting that the "we" in Lewinton's comments is all scientists and implicitly asserting he is qualified to speak for them by basing your claims on his statements.