I wish to add that scientists halt their own inquiry when they invoke the anthropic principle. As evidence, I give you this:
On page 9, with regard to an anomaly, the writer says: Do we need to introduce a new physics or invoke the Anthropic Principle to explain it?
IMHO, there is no substantive difference between halting inquiry by saying God did it v. by bucketing the anomaly into the Anthropic Principle. Neither is acceptable to me.
Seems to me that there is a big difference between the statement of ID that something was intelligently designed and the use of the antrhopic principle by materialists . ID bases its statement on scientific observations which point to the almost infinte impossibility of something not being designed. Materialists claim the antrhopic principle in spite of the scientific evidence for randomness and lack of design.
There is something else wrong with the anthropic principle - subjectivism. Eventually it relies on the idea that if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one around to hear it fall it does not make a sound. This is of course ridiculous and scientifically disprovable.