If parsimony is the criteria, then believing in God and that He
created the world requires the least number of assumptions. It only
requires that 'God exists". On the other hand, alternatives like
evolution are more complex.
Using your argument, then don't believe in god is easier. U do
not have to believe god exists. And tat is not even an assumption
because there is no evidence tat says god exists. Zero is lesser
than 1.
If u talk about evolution, frankly speaking there r minimally or no
assumptions made. 
Even if there r assumptions, they r supported by observation, logic
and evidence. Tis is because like all science, studies r made to
reduce the number of assumption made to it. They have some form of
evidence or observation to back it up and thus it no longer become
an assumption but a fact
To the person who asks this, one could asks "How do you that
there is no God?". As to evidence, saying that there is 'no
evidence' of God's existence is merely an assertion which requires
further refinement, and until proven, cannot be taken as
proof.
Firstly, what sort of evidence are we talking about? If one says
physical evidence, then how does one prove that there is only
physical evidence in the world? And if one says that God cannot be
scientifically proven, then one is merely assuming that the
scientific method is the only one possible, which is clearly not
the case.
If we do not rely on scientific method, which is using logic,
seek evidence and depending on observation and proven to be right
by the use of technology, then wat do u rely on ? Books on hearsay
? There r few hundreds different books and scripture tat states
their religion to be right. So how do u know yours is right ?
Assume ? How do u know the thousands of incidents recorded in the
book is right ? Assume ?
