It is hard to see how Denton's argument can avoid a similar fate. I'll reiterate what everyone else has said so far. While life as a phenomenon presupposes natural laws and regularities, and on that score I think Denton's argument is compelling, those same laws and regularities do not explain life's origin or its essential character. The analogy I like is architectural. Physical fine-tuning, in other words, will only take one so far.
Organisms are physical systems, sure, but of course they are also so much more than physics.
Or even chemistry. Or even biochemistry. I think Denton fails utterly to demonstrate his thesis, namely, that life is the inevitable or pre-programmed outcome of natural regularities. Actually he doesn't even try. His discussion of the origin of life, for example, is quite abbreviated, and mostly criticizes the shortcomings of existing naturalistic theories.