Of course, there are many meanings of the term “anthropic principle”...but the point is, “perfect conditions for humans” is absolutely no evidence toward creationism.
Conclusive evidence? No, of course not...short of a time-machine (or direct revelation) such evidence is not possible. And that would be "perfect conditions" for all forms of life on Earth, not merely humans.
However, if it can be shown that life on Earth is plausibly unique in all the unimaginably large universe...that does cause one to ponder.
The whole (now common) "life is common" theory in science about the universe is based on definite evolutionary assumptions--that time and chance are all that are necessary for creation, even of life--and the idea of a Supreme Being is cut out of the picture by default.
I was fortunate to have spent some time in conversation with one of the leading physicists in the world a few years ago at a conference he keynoted. He is intensely uncomfortable with the observed "tuning" of the constants of the general model BECAUSE it points to a creator who did the tuning--the tuning is way too improbably to have happened by chance. Even worse, from his perspective, it points to a tuner who planned on having humans around.
He has spent a good deal of the past decade working on theories to get around that implication with not much success.
““perfect conditions for humans” is absolutely no evidence toward creationism.”
Perfect conditions for a type of life form to exist, suited to the environment, might be.
God has many creatures. Many. Heck, we haven’t even found all the currently existing forms of life, on this little rock.