The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, in THE ORIGIN OF LIFE - FIVE QUESTIONS WORTH ASKING, wrote:What does the evidence reveal? The answer to the question, Where do babies come from? is well-documented and uncontroversial. Life always comes from preexisting life. However, if we go back far enough in time, is it really possible that this fundamental law was broken? Could life really spontaneously spring from non-living chemicals? What are the chances that such an event could happen?
Researchers have learned that for a cell to survive, at least three different types of complex molecules must work together-DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), RNA (ribo nucleic ac id), and proteins. Today, few scientists would assert that a complete living cell suddenly formed by chance from a mix of inanimate chemicals. What, though, is the probability that RNA or proteins could form by chance?*
• The probability or DNA forming by chance will be discussed in section 3. -Where Did the Instructions Come From"~
So far, we have no evidence contradicting the observations that life always comes from pre-existing life. So far. As has already been discussed in this topic, we do have evidence that it may be possible, but no, we haven't seen it yet. Is this a law, though? Not necessarily an authoritative source, but the article in Wikipedia about the Laws of Science don't list a single one that is biological.
It occurs to me again that up to this point, the authors of this booklet have failed to give a rigorous definition of "life". But, they have no problem at all leaping straight into the next paragraph, setting the stage once more for discussing what is likely to be their quantum particle of life, the cell. The rest of the booklet is mostly concerned with showing how fantastically complicated a living cell is, and how impossible it is for a living cell to just react its way into existence chemically by chance, and how inevitable our defeat is, blah, blah, blah.
Actually, I don't have any significant problem with the second paragraph above. Although, for different reasons than those who wrote it, to be sure.