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.
Truly, I believe scientists in the Intelligent Design movement want more, not less, research.