Well - no.
Blinn-Phong is a 5-liner, we might reasonably ask the question what the other 660 lines of, say the terrain shader are doing. For instance in addition to the lines you posted there's other terms coming later which do give definition to specularity and shape in the absence of direct light.
I think it's grossly misleading to say something still
is the 5-liner and has the same limitations when these lines are less than a percent of the total that's happening.
(And yes, not all the 660 lines deal with lighting - some indeed process texture or light color, we could do a detailed breakdown if you really wanted...)
Doing that would just unnecessarily complicate things for someone willing to play with ALS and its shaders.
Not doing so would pretend that 660 lines of shader code are not relevant and be far more complicated to understand. The code will not respond like B-P, it even discards some things you can set for B-P.
On a different note, calling the whole 'Blinn-Phong' after the 1% that you cited would also deny my authorship of things that are clearly beyond the scheme and which I added based on my own insights.
As far as materials or alternative descriptions are concerned, that's in my view merely a way of organizing your thoughts about what you see - it has no particular relevance otherwise. The goal of rendering is to produce a credible pixel color for every screen pixel - how you organize the path there - whether you define something in terms of 'diffuse color' and 'specularity' or 'metallicity' - is a question of how you conceptualize what you see, not of the output - in math terms, you're changing the coordinate description of a problem, not the problem itself.
Short version: ALS is a lighting scheme that gives you specular skylight reflection and irradiance definition in the complete absence of direct light, B-P does not, thus the output is different, thus they're not the same schemes.