"...a devout Creationist can claim...

well, sure! He can misinterpret what 'simplify' really means, thus misapplying Occam in his very critique of it.

A.N. Whitehead also said "Strive for simplicity, but learn to mistrust it,"....and I can even agree with the warning.....that's where the "sine necessitate comes in....and that's why "God made it all" is not a useful answer to "Why is there something, instead of nothing?".

But, the more science discovers about brain chemistry and structure and DNA, etc....the less it seems we NEED metaphysical concepts to explain many, if not most, experiences. There will always be subjective 'stuff' that we can never totally measure, record or track, but until we can do statistically relevant tests that **incontrovertibly** show non-physical causality, Occam's law will still be a basic tool...(and I'm sure you will find a way to 'kick it' if only by using your linguistically enhanced 'virtual toe'... *grin*)