Really, the anthropic principle falls better into the category of philosophy rather than science. The other one, I'm not so familiar with, I'll look it up when I get the chance. Also, not everything you find on the internet can be trusted.By refuting every single argument that was ever made in favor of it. From irreducable complexity to anthropic principle. These knock down refutations are widely available on the internet.
If it is the logical conclusion based on examples that we can relate to then why would it be silly?I don't get what your argument is though. All it seems like you're saying is "If it looks like it was intelligently made, then it must be intelligently made" if you can't figure out why that's silly, then there's nothing I can do to help you. Sorry.
Let me reverse that question you posed me. Say, I go to the store and see an iPhone5, I pick it up and say "it was intelligently made", did I make the logical, scientific answer? Now lets say we look at the nearly infinite universe, from the biggest galaxy to the smallest atom, even our Earth. Would it be illogical to draw the same conclusion that I did with the iPhone5?
Are you familiar with the concept of a legal precedent? Basically, its the idea that you use previous conclusions to help you make new, similar ones. Making the conclusion that the house, ring of stones, and iPhone5 are all precedents to coming to the conclusion that the universe had intelligent design.