Like the introduction of a aimless random force that bring organization from disorder? 
Occam's Razor is, in effect, a restatement of the principal of parsimony. It can be stated variously as -- one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything -- or -- one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.
Since the reflection of these systems would imply an intelligent cause to a reasonable person observing the result, the simplest explanation is that it was created and guided.
Although creationists repeat on a regular basis that the "simplest explanation" is creation ex nihilo by a supernatural agent, and that this supposedly "simple explanation" is consistent with Occam's Razor, it is in fact a direct violation of Occam's Razor.
This "simple explanation" involves the introduction of an invisible, undefined, unexplained, and inexplicable entity -- thus adding (or superimposing) on that which is being explained an unnecessary entity or an additional assumption that is itself incapable of explanation.
To a creationist, simple means the quickest way to end inquiry.
Gad.
Like the introduction of a aimless random force that bring organization from disorder?
The principal of parsimony has not been empirically tested as a valid means of attaining objective knowlegde. IOW, the simplest explanation is not necessarily the truest one. Creationists have been accused of stifling scientific inquiry because they attribute the general organization and behavior of matter to an intelligent designer. In fact, it is evolutionists who throw up their hands and say "We don't know, and what cannot know, what is behind this mere 'appearance' of organization."