You, yourself, have been inconsistent in always making clear whether you were referring to "weak" vs. "strong."
For the record, I was always referring to the "Weak Anthropic Principle" (WAP).
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.
WAP does indeed "knock the legs out from under" that particular fallacious argument advanced by some Creationists. But perhaps it would make more sense to you if I phrased it thusly: WAP renders moot the question of the "likelihood" of the universal constants being so perfectly "tuned" as to allow the appearance of Life. (And it does this without itself proffering a counter-explanation. We have, after all, agreed that WAP doesn't "explain" how Life arose, etc. - but that does not mean that WAP is without value.)
For: However "likely" or "unlikely" the "fine-tuning" of the universal constants might be (and yes: WAP most certainly does not address this issue) - if those constants hadn't been fine-tuned, there would perforce be no observers to remark upon that fact. Only in those universes* in which the constants are (by chance) "right" are there any observers to comment upon this fact (or, in your case, to express their dismay at the alleged "unlikelihood" of their being so fine-tuned).
For any other FReepers who might still be following this conversation, let me offer another (albeit: rough) analogy:
At a university lecture, the lecturer asks everyone who has come to the lecture to "Please raise your hands." They then do so. Immediately afterwards, some wiseguy remarks, "Hah! That proves nothing! He should have asked everyone who didn't come to raise their hands! That would have been more enlightening!"
The truth is that in neither case does a show of hands indicate how popular (or unpopular) the lecture was. By the same token, the existence of this Universe does not indicate how likely or unlikely the Universe is. Rather, WAP makes it clear that we should not be astounded at the fact that the universal constants are so fine-tuned, since if they weren't, we wouldn't be here to express our lack of astonishment.
Regards,
*I am not claiming that actual "multiverses" necessarily exist. WAP certainly doesn't address the existence of any other universes or demand that they must exist. One could instead speak of "hypothetical" universes, if you wish.
Based on the theoretical possibility that other universes could exist, that is a valid point. If it could be proven that this is the only universe, then the creationist argument is not only credible but virtually irrefutable.