Nope. You first commit the fallacy of necessity by insisting that biology must operate by divine intervention. I have never seen anyone make that claim except an evolutionist. Then you follow that with the fallacy of appeal to the consequences of a belief, as though science would be impossible if a supernatural creator were acknowledged. That's a simple non sequitur as well.
"If this "us" is Lewinton and some of his Marxist collegues then his comments may be accurate, but have been misrepresented by you as being representative of all scientists."
The context says he refers to all scientists.
"If the "us" he's referring to is all scientists then the fallacy is of appeal to an invalid authority. He can't speak for the personal philosophy of all scientists, especially with regards to their personal philosophy prior to and independant of their scientific pursuits."
Of course, by definition he cannot be speaking for scientists who believe in supernatural creation so your point, while technically accurate, is misleading and irrelevant. You have a couple of choices to prove him wrong. 1. You can show that science is not based on the philosophy of naturalism or 2. you can show that ID is considered science. Either one of those possibilities would invalidate Lewontin's statement.
But to just wave your hands and wail about an admission you don't want to make doesn't help you at all.
If Lewontin is correct, and all scientists have an a priori committment to philosophical naturalism, the no one who believes in supernatural creation is a scientist.
If people who believe in supernatural creation can adopt the necessary methodological naturalism to be good scientists without also adopting philosophical naturalism then Lewontin is wrong.
Pick one.