Your first paragraph bothers me. It essentially boils down to this:
Carl Sagan: The universe is also structured to be perfect for rocks, so why not say that it was created to make rocks?
You: Because rocks aren't intelligent.
Now, no offense, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
No offense taken! Criticism is the only way I'll ever clear all those mental cobwebs from my head. The reason I attacked Sagan's comments in the way I did was that it seemed silly to say "if stones could philosophize." It seemed to me that if they could indeed philosophize they would be just as justified as any of us in constructing "the lithic principle." But does my attempt miss the force of Sagan's objection? Perhaps in a way it does, but doesn't it seem reasonable that the more complex, self aware thing has a better claim on the x principle, where x is either anthropic or lithic (or whatever)?
The upshot of this post is not really about the intelligence of rocks, it seems to me to be more about natural progression, or maybe "first come first served." I may be just restating Josh, but, if rocks had developed intelligence, then they probably would have developed a "lithic principle."
I think that ultimately what is being stated is that the universe is in fact, structured, and logic indicates that order does not arise on its own. No offense to rocks, but it takes some(one, thing) sentient to reason that out, right?
The HUMAN PARADIGM
Man is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by nature
and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of Criteria.
Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive characteristic
is, and of Right ought to be, the natural foundation of
his environments, institutions, and respectful relations
to his fellow-man. Thus, he is oriented to a Freedom
whose roots are in the Order of the universe.
See:
"Human Defined: Earth's Choicemaker"
http://www.choicemaker.net/
Commenting by HaloScan
