The following argument is logically valid.
1. There are patterns of regularity found in the laws of nature. (Premise)
2. The laws of nature are either the result of chance, necessity or design. (Premise)
3. Patterns of regularity cannot be the result of chance alone. (Premise)
4. Therefore, the laws of nature are either the result of necessity or design. (From 1 - 3)
Whether the laws of nature are explained by necessity or design is inconsequential at this point of the argument. After all, given that chance is a very poor explanation, the laws of nature must be the result of someone or something's providence.
That providence is what we believers call, "God." If it's a "someone," then we have an argument for a personal designer. If it's a "something," then we're left with some form of pantheism.
To be honest, I just don't get why atheists won't embrace pantheism. I think there are a lot of problems with pantheism, but pantheism makes much more sense to me than atheism. If the atheist will simply come to terms with pantheism being a more viable belief than atheism, then I think we can make some real progress. The debate would no longer be about theism versus atheism, but rather theism versus pantheism.