The Anthropic Principle (AP), in its many versions, has received diverging assessments. I mainly examine the less speculative weak (WAP) and strong (SAP) versions and their assessments. I argue, among others, the following points. The construal of the WAP asa consistency requirement or a truth of (Bayesian) confirmation theory, while correct, does not quite capture its spirit. The charge of its being a tautology, which occasionscomparisons with the Principle of Natural Selection (PNS), is overstated. Still, in contrast with PNS's role, (...) it is never substantially involved in „anthropic explanations”. „Many worlds”-hypotheses, joined to the SAP, can yield (rather speculative) explanation. Friends of the AP roughly accept common scientific standards, which make the AP appear — even to some of them — as a temporary stop-gap. (shrink)