It is a non sequitur that a person committed to philosophical naturalism in the creation of 'scientific' theories must also be an atheist. It is simply a rule of the game.
It is also a continuation of the converse fallacy of accident along with the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion to argue that the personal opinion of any number of scientists has any relevance to the issue.
The only issue is whether science generates any theories that are not based on philosophical naturalism. There are none and Lweontin's admission is accurate.
You're arguing there is personal, a priori committment to philosophical naturalism, above and beyond simply what is required for scientific work. Philosophical naturalism denies the existence of supernatural forces or beings. That is what Lewontin describes, and what you are attribute to all scientists, even in their private lives outside the lab, just like Lewinton.
The only issue is whether science generates any theories that are not based on philosophical naturalism.
It is to you, and that's why you have to reject all the evidence that doesn't support Lewinton's assertions that all scientists share his committment to that philosophy. You are apparently going to be Lewontin's conterpart in this. If he's determined not to let a divine foot in the door, then you're going to be determined to force it there.