Right. As if a lower-case "n" would cure the problem. Come on, A-Girl. First, you know that the anthropic principle is a mere speculation, far from being universally accepted among scientists, and it comes in a few different flavors -- all of which I can easily reject.
Second, is that (the anthropic principle) really the reason you're going to keep on bashing your opponents by characterizing their position with your bumper-strip misrepresentation "Nature did it!"? It can't be. Your pretext for clinging to your bumper-strip is itself a reification "get science to give up ..." used to justify your bumper-strip's claim that the scientific position is a reification of nature.
Truly I can understand the desire to avoid another Galileo fiasco - but the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.
There are several disciplines of science where scientific materialism hinders progress by the "Nature did it!" presumption. These include cosmology, information theory, theoretical physics, studies of consciousness/mind and historical sciences.
And it is not limited to the non-religious studies either. In Biblical Archeology, the presumption is that prophesy is impossible and therefore any reference to an event which actually occurred is used to date a manuscript after the date of the event. In this case, the archeologists were caught flat footed when, based on the ancient manuscripts of Enoch speaking of Herod’s reign, dated them to after Herod’s birth – only to have that presumption refuted by the later discovery of a copy of the manuscript in the Dead Sea Scrolls, carbon dated to 200 B.C.