If you are correct, then the ID movement is real science because what they propose is exactly the opposite of what Lewontin says. If Lewontin is correct, then science's claim that ID is 'religion' confirms Lewontin's position and reveal that you are merely disingenuous.
That's a nicely constucted "heads I win, tails you lose" test. How long did it take you to come up with that?
It didn't take any time at all. That's how it is with self-evident truth. It's instantly evident. You can't face that but must avoid answering the question in any way possible.
Now either Lewontin is correct and there is an 'a priori' commitment to philosophical naturalism or 'science' is free to explore the evidence and ID may rightfully conclude that what is observed may be the result of a supernatural creator.
That's *if* science is not 'a priori' philsophical naturalism. Sadly it is and you avoiding the issue proves it.