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,
Yes the creationist argument addresses the likelihood of the finely tuned universe. The “weak” anthropic principle doesn’t address the likelihood. Therefore the anthropic principle is not knocking the legs out from anything.
If you think the weak anthropic principle “knocks the legs out from under” the creationist argument, then you must think it addresses the likelihood of such a universe. If you think it does that then you don’t understand the anthropic principle.
Unless you’re referring to one of the “strong” anthropic principles. You may not even understand what you’re referring to.