Strong Anthropic Principle vs Creationism

[Mudhammam]

My problem with the weak anthropic principle is that it doesn't address the issue of potentially varying universal constants.

It is, of course, possible that somewhere down the line we'll figure out why everything has to stack up exactly as it does and why no other possible configurations can exist, but at present (and this doesn't necessarily mean much) cosmologists are drawing a blank.

Sure, it doesn't answer WHY but if a sensible answer to that even exists we're probably still a long ways off--and creationism offers no solution to that basic question either.

The strong principle - or rather, the variant of it that calls on multiverses - seems to be the only one that addresses a regular theist argument - i.e. that the chances of the physical constants of the universe happening to exist in a configuration capable of supporting life are infinitessimal.

I thought this was the weak version; basically that our existence is simply one result of many possible configurations, while the strong held that intelligence in the Universe was compelled or in some sense integral to the fundamental constants. Have I got it wrong?