[PMCarey]

The Anthropic Principle is usually misunderstood by creationists. Creationists will often cite this principle to "prove" that physicists believe in a Creator God. In fact it has nothing to do with the existence (or non-existence) of God.

Think of a child who says to his mother: "Isn't it an amazing coincidence that you're my mom AND we're also related!" That in a nutshell is the Anthropic Principle. The fact that people are alive studying the universe necessarily implies that the universe is set up to support life. One might as well invoke God to explain the amazing coincidence that every square has four sides.

[RightWhale]

An Amazing Coincidence - exactly what it isn't. It is no coincidence that we inhabit this universe out of the infinite number of possible universes. That in a nutshell is the Anthropic Principle.

Sure, but while we know what it isn't, why can't we just say what it is by giving a definitive statement? [You first, I don't have Guth's book handy] Or are we just going to say the name of the Principle from time to time and let the untutored masses stampede away and over the horizon with their new word toy as usual?

[AndrewC]

Think of a child who says to his mother: "Isn't it an amazing coincidence that you're my mom AND we're also related!" That in a nutshell is the Anthropic Principle.

If your explanation is so reasonable, why are Nobel Laureates wasting their time on the subject?