You are committing the "necessary but not sufficient" causal fallacy.
A causal fallacy you commit this fallacy when you assume that a necessary condition of an event is sufficient for the event to occur. A necessary condition is a condition that must be present for an event to occur. A sufficient condition is a condition or set of conditions that will produce the event. A necessary condition must be there, but it alone does not provide sufficient cause for the occurrence of the event. Only the sufficient grounds can do this. In other words, all of the necessary elements must be there.A universe that supports life is a necessary condition in order for us to be observing it. There is no causal explanation in that statement. That is the additional necessary element: In other words, all of the necessary elements must be there.
I did not contest that statement of yours!
I never claimed that the Anthropic Principle explained how the Universe came into being, or how or why Life appeared.
Rather, I merely pointed out that the Anthropic Principle shows how any pro-Creationist argument based upon the observation that certain fundamental constants (such as the Fine-Structure Constant) have to be "finely tuned" for Life to exist - and how "unlikely" that is - is fallacious.
The pro-Creationist argument is, basically, "See how incredibly unlikely it is for the Universe to be as it is, i.e., to be so conducive to Life? That means that an intelligent and benevolent Creator must have interceded and deliberately 'tuned' those constants!"
The recognition of the Anthropic Principle "knocks the legs out from under" that fallacious reasoning.
Regards,