I'm afraid the law of biogenesis (which came from science) does say that life cannot come from non-living mater. I'm sorry, but that is scientific. You may mean that there is nothing in science that makes any law of science absolute. If that's what you meant, then maybe I'll agree with you. However, the law does exist, and it does stand until further observations refute it.
The Law of biogenesis is not a law born out of theoretical predictions as well as observations; it is supported only by observations of the modern world, and as such, can only be called a theory. So, don't try and base your arguments off of the premise that what you are arguing is law. What you are saying is a simple matter of confounded logic, as many on this thread have pointed out.
You mean to say that all life comes from preexisting life, and that we couldn't have come about from nonliving materials. A fascinating theory. But think about an analogous case. Let's talk about evolution. Suppose that a person in malaria ridden Africa breaks out with sickle cell anemia due to a point mutation in his genes that causes a mistake in the structure of the hemoglobin in his blood. Of course, this person is now immune to malaria, and his mutation is selected for and is passed on to his descendants. Soon enough, the entire population has the gene for sickle cell anemia, and are, for the most part, all immune to malaria. Disregarding the obvious side effects of SCA, this mutation is beneficial and is a microevolutionary step. A hundred years in the future, the only people that remain are those with the SCA gene, and some man, perhaps a descendant of yourself, posits that his population must have always had the SCA gene, and couldn't possibly have gotten it from some unnatural way.
After all, all modern observations support the man's theory. No new sickle cell genes come about, and only previous genes in previous generations beget new genes in younger generations.
But in the end, the man is wrong. There was a time when his people didn't have the gene. The gene came about in a mutation in the normal hemoglobin protein.
This is akin to the situation you find yourself in. How can you say that 3.8 billion years ago, the first life didn't evolve from nonliving materials? You can't. You cannot call the law of biogenesis a law. It is only a theory. And yes, it is taught in schools in the form of Pasteur's experiments and the like.
Let me elaborate. I'm on a tight schedule, and only have a bit of time to hang around here. This is why I probably haven't made myself very clear. Forgive me.
I meant that pure observations of the natural world cannot give rise to laws, which are, by definition, different from theories. Laws must have a theoretical component to them as well as an observational one. If the predictions of a theory (the theoretical components) are found to be always accurate through observation, the theory can be upgraded to law status. All laws, of gravitation, of inertia, etc., are based off of theoretical as well as observational components. I hope I'm making myself clear.
Secondly, if you mean to argue that we can never have absolute proof of anything, then this entire debate between creationists and evolutionists is nullified. One side can always come back with, "Well, you can't say that for a hundred percent sure!" and that would be that.
This is not our concern. What we [scientists] mean to do is to look at all the evidence and create theories based on those pieces of evidence as to what is most likely happening and will happen, and in so happening will affect some changes in the world. But unless you have a theoretical component to biogenesis that soundly predicts that no life could ever spring from non-life, you can't call biogenesis a law.
The predictions of biogenesis are an effect of the observations, and not a cause of them. Einstein first used mathematics to predict general relativity, after which observations of gravitational lensing confirmed his ideas. Predictions justified by observations after the fact are not predictions, but inferences.
Your quote of my words was meant as a general fact about why we do science. It doesn't matter if our reality is a dream, because we are affected by it nonetheless, and it still is a reality within our objective sight. My quote was not meant as an explanation of the science of biogenesis. It was a refutation to your comment about dreams.