That is twice now that Occam's Razor has been mentioned in this thread. And I have heard it many times before as an explanation by people who don't believe in God. And to be honest with you it has always struck me as a little odd that people would use it as such.
If you assume, as most scientific types do I suppose, that everything (and by everything I mean
everything 
) is ultimatly understandable to us given enough time to study and test our hypotheses, then I suppose once we (us as a speices) reach the point of complete understanding (a long time from now of course) then an eternal divine creator is a "more complex" option, and thus would be logically discarded.
However if your assumption is a belief in a creator, and that there are things in life which are the domain of the creator that we as a species are incapable of understanding without revalation of some sort, then your two options are just as clear. And the divine creator is much less complex one than the incredible string of random circumstances that would be required to produce life as we know it.
So to use Occam's Razor in defense of either argument, you basically have to decide which side you are on first. It is useless as tool in determining the truth of the matter.
(EDIT: Don't you love it when you come up with something totally off the cuff and then find something afterwards that appears to support it? Of course you have to accept my assumptions to agree, but here's an intersting link for what it's worth. http://skepdic.com/occam.html)
Geoschmo
[ December 13, 2002, 13:50: Message edited by: geoschmo ]