No, it isn't. Occam's razor is an operational principle of science and has nothing to do with metaphysical naturalism. (Unsurprising, considering William of Occam was a theologian and a monk). The Anthropic Principle, in whatever variant, is an attempt to deduce something about the Universe from the fact that we exist. One is not the other. js1138 said he saw no need to invoke 'information theory' to explain evolution. That would simply be an application of Occam's razor. It implies nothing about the existence of a god or the tendency of that god to intervene in the current evolution of the universe.
As for solipsism, it can adequately be refuted without invoking Occam.
Indeed, js1138's assertion that he can see "no need" for information theory in evolution is Occam's Razor.
However, I continue to assert that his statement is also an appeal to the anthropic principle wrt evolution because he presumes that evolution is fully explained by nature alone, i.e. without information theory.
The excerpt at 1929 illustrates that both Occam's Razor and the Anthropic Principle are asserted in support of metaphysical naturalism which was my entire point in post 1902.
IOW, assert either one or the other (or both) if you like, but it is precisely the same kind of argument as "God did it" only in this instance, it is that "nature did it".
i think you miss the point Alamo-Girl was making, which i took to be: Precisely because, as an operational principle, Occam's razor is not in thrall to -- "has nothing to do with" -- metaphysical naturalism (or any other "ism" for that matter), anybody can use it to shore up his vision or version of reality. That is to say, Occam's razor is "agnostic" with respect to competing visions and worldviews, and even principles such as the Anthropic Principle. All it requires is that one "boil problems down" to their essential elements, casting out all the "dross" along the way. Perhaps when a metaphysical naturalist or some other thinker employs this tool, the "dross" he is casting away is the pith of the problem. Occam's razor is, in short, perhaps not entirely effective in such cases of restricted evidence.