Kepler may not have used the term, but he most certainly believed that the simplicity of his model made it superior. He said that that all the complex motions of the planets in the sky could be attributed to, in his words, "a single magnetic force". And then it was Newton's use of the same tool (again, whether or not he made specific reference to the name of it) led him to conclude that this "magnetic" force is the same force that caused that apple to fall off his tree in his orchard.
I do not see anything spectacularly simpler about a universe full of bodies buzzing every which way toward their own private particular Newtonian destiny, over a nice clean, cozy universe of enclosing spheres with a single shared center point, just because you've removed a term or two from a complex description of orbital mechanics.
It's not the simplicity of results that Occam's razor favors, but the simplicity of explanations for complex results. That's what makes Kepler's model infinitely superior to Ptolemy's.
[[Personally, I think some form of ID, or at least panspermia, is the best way out of several mutational clock dilemmas that presently puzzle us....which isn't sufficient to make it a science of any significant note.]]
[It's sufficient to make it an hypothesis, at the least.]
As is the case with crystal healing, astrology, and pastararianism.
You said that ID is a good way out of some dilemmas posed by current science. How is astrology a good way out of any dilemmas posed by science?
That's your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I find celestial spheres quite a satisfactorily simple universe to operate in. Whether a given theory has Occam-ish simplicity depends on which fish you wish to fry.
Kepler's model is not "infinitely superior to Ptolemy's" any more than Einsteinian mechanics are infinitely superior to Newtonian mechanics. You can still navigate your way home Ptolemaicly.
You said that ID is a good way out of some dilemmas posed by current science.
Indeed I did. However, it takes way more homework than that to push someone's feverish opinion onto the science table as a serious scientific hypothesis, worthy of diverting any scientific resources or consideration whatsoever toward.
How is astrology a good way out of any dilemmas posed by science?
Unlike ancient astronomy, Modern astronomy totally fails to explain to individual humans what the subtle interactions of the stars predict for their personal lives. Unlike in the old days, it is hard to understand why any ordinary human would give a tinker's poop for taxpayer supported astronomy.