hmmm...where did you get that quote?
I am having a bit of trouble discerning its meaning.
the way I usually think of the anthropic principle is that it tells us that the seemingly amazingly coincidental set of circumstances we see in the universe are necessary (not THAT kind of necessary, Kant) precoditions for our ability to reflect on these circumstances in the first place. In this way, these circumstances are not amazing, wonderfully coincidental, or divine but are instead those which have given rise to our amazement. I dunno. I find the application of this principle tricky, and I think my understanding is rather poor.
Now, if we are to entertain the many-universes interpretation of quantum mechanics and couple that with the anthropic principle, we find that the circumstances which gave rise to life are not amazing but are rather one aspect of the structure of the multiverse which contains all possibilities. I used to be more taken with the many-universes interpretation, but I am now wondering whether it is just another expression of the Western philosophical urge to make the possible "real".
now on to the musings!
>>Are carbon-based lifeforms the only way in this universe?
>>
I STILL don't see why. They are probably the only way on planets like ours though.
>>Do the highly specific properties that we "observe" in the physical world indicate something amazing? >>
No, properties as such do not exist.

Seriously, though, we need to say how these would be amazing.
>>Or is it an argument from lack of imagination? (X seems highly improbable, so not X)>>
heh...wouldn't it go "X is highly improbable given that all known possibilities have equal probabalistic standing; therefore, God designed X"?
ebola
np: venetian snares