Nice try, but the commitment doesn't have to be personal in every single case for the statement to hold true. Arguing that finding exceptions who conform to the rule but supposedly do not conform to the philosophical requirement doesn't change the outcome. That is the converse fallacy of accident. We see philosophical naturalism in every single origins theory proposed by 'science' without exception. It is the outcome that proves the rule.
"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."
There is no evidence that doesn't support Lewontin's statement. This is why you focus on the individual beliefs as though finding an exception invalidates the fact that all origins theories are philosophically natural. It does not. All origins theories are philosophically natural and Lewontin's statement is confirmed by that evidence.
"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."
I am not forcing any divine foot into any door. I merely point out that the 'theories' of science are, without exception, based on philosophical naturalism. That point stands on it's own and your move toward the fallacy of appeal to consequences of a belief is just that, another fallacy.
We see methodological naturalism. You imagine philosophical naturalism by erroneously extrapoltating Lewonton's personal philosophy to all scientists.