No, Trib. You're really wrong on this. He proved that mold doesn't spring up from nothing. A very different proposition than what you take it to be. I'm not spinning. Check it out for yourself. You're good with search engines. The ultimate origin of all life was not the problem he was working on. It was food spoilation.
Think about this: why should there be an assumption that life has a natural origin?
Ah! The ulitmate epistemological issue is raised. When presented with a problem, what's you're first reaction -- natural cause or super-natural cause? Apparently, your very first (and to you, the most proper) reaction to an unknown phenomenon is that it's a miracle. To me, miracle is the very last resort, after all possible natural explanations have been exhausted. So I guess we approach problems in a very different way.
OK, I took your challenge (a fast search, I'm going to hit it early tonight.)
I searched for "law of biogenesis" (actually sans quotes.) There were about 4,580 hits. The first two pages consisted mostly of links to religious/creationist sites such as creationscience.com and apologeticspress.org which support my view.
On the third page is the first pro-evo site to address it, vuletic.com which supports your view but admits the jury is still out.
Probably the best site is the one I first linked to at Oxford University Press xrefer.com which says biogenisis "is the principle that a living organism . . .can never originate from nonliving material."
Which is what I've been saying all along.
Apparently, your very first (and to you, the most proper) reaction to an unknown phenomenon is that it's a miracle.
You misunderstand my position. I think it is very wrong to consider unknown phenomenon as miraculous. On the other hand it is a great evil not to give ultimate credit to God for his creation. Check this Blackstone link. The relevant stuff is in the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs. He's a smarter guy than me and sums up this position better. Besides, I'm going to crash.
'night.