it isn't backed up empirically, but nothing anyone says about the MBTI is
That isn't a get out of jail free card, you know...especially considering the empirical facts (such as they are) argue against your theory.
It is hard to fault from a theoretical perspective - the most comprehensive definition I could find on the net for creativity is the "mental process involving the discovery of new ideas or concepts, or new associations of the existing ideas or concepts, fueled by the process of either conscious or unconscious insight."
Uh, ok? I guess I missed the memo on sensors being unable to discover new ideas or form new associations. Most definitions of creativity also focus on creating new
things, which you conveniently didn't mention - that part sounds more geared towards sensors, doesn't it?
If we were talking about discovering new creative ways to solve differential equations, you'd have my attention. And clearly many creative people are intuitive, and you could make a fairly strong argument that intuitives are overrepresented for their population, especially in certain areas. But seriously, all creative things? Creativity in choosing paint colours, in combining food flavours, in composing music, in writing novels, in the performing arts, in designing clothes, it's all dominated by intuitives, a small minority of the population? That's quite a stretch (and not backed up by the evidence).
I would actually agree that most creative people would probably have a strong intuitive side, but I disagree that they need to be full-blown intuitives, as sensing confers several strong advantages to the creative process. I would also wager that intuitive creative people, especially in more physically creative areas, would have a strong sensing side as well.