Humans at least have, if not all life has, choices which the humans often describe as "free" choices. In time some choices prove to be efficacious, other choices do not. With yet other choices it might not be immediately clear how efficacious they are. A critical question here is — efficacious to whom or what? Using any particular individual as a standard is fraught with difficulties in that various individuals might have various opinions whether something is efficacious and to what extent.
In general practice people do assume that some standard has been established. Some people assume it is the intended purpose of the "universe" or some author of the universe, others assume it is the best human approximation of the intended purpose of the universe, still others assume the universe has no purpose, and humans can make up whatever they want. We could spend an entire semester in a college philosophy class discussing which of those is "true," but the effort would not likely settle the question.
It has been found though that using a human "majority" to establish a standard can result in obvious errors. That is, a human majority cannot always be the sole and final arbiter of the standard. It is however the plight of humans, especially today, that they must try to establish a standard to the best of their ability and only make such corrections as appear necessary. That is to say that democracy is the best form of government. As the famous quote goes, "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others." It is hoped that the mistakes the majority is making through Trump prove that better choices are necessary and possible. Nothing else seems to be working it out. And while the universe does appear to have certain "laws" of science, it can be obvious that quite many people fail to practice science correctly.
I, myself, continue to believe that the universe is not an accident. I believe the universe has a purpose and humans have a purpose in it. It can be apparent throughout history though that rather large numbers of humans have made choices that are most inexpedient in accomplishing the true purpose of themselves or of the universe.
Another thing I have always believed from the time I was a small child is that "I am." That is to say that I am not some combination of adenosine triphosphate and sulfur, rather I am essentially spiritual in nature. Again people might ask the question how I know. Ancient Hindu philosophers have tried to explain how it works. Perhaps those writings will serve you. I am not the only person today to have this experience. It is quite common around the world.
In contrast there are those people with no sense of their own spirituality. They tend to dominate on social media. They tend to argue that all religion is total foolishness. Instead they fight for what they believe is science. There are two serious problems with that.
One problem is that they are not any good any science themselves. Instead they keep a list of things they believe are science and "fight" for those things on the internet. They rally people who agree with them. Fighting is all they know, thinking is not their habit nor their forte. They have to fight because they cannot explain what they do not understand themselves.
The other problem is that "science" cannot answer most important questions in life no matter how well people practice science. Should a country be communist or capitalist? There is no truly "scientific" answer. Some people merely prefer the simplicity of life under communism, other people prefer the abundance of choices under capitalism. That is all, no science. Other questions science likewise cannot answer are how much money and effort should be spent to educate whom to do what? That of course is far and away most of politics that science cannot help.
Good answers to those questions are typically found through arts usually based on religion in various forms or some sort of spirituality. Yet there they are on the internet trying to eliminate all religion and spirituality, as though that could solve all the problems in the world. At the current stage in the advancement of human knowledge an "atheist" is a severely mentally impaired individual. Order in the world is crashing because they refuse to relinquish control.
A particularly obvious flaw of theirs is being plainspoken to a severe fault. Some measure and application of being plainspoken can serve society well, especially in courts. Scriptures however should not be taken too literally. In fact scriptures cannot be taken entirely literally. In fact nothing can be communicated literally unless the source and the audience have a common experience of it all beforehand. If a person is blind from birth there is no way to communicate literally the color green to them. Scriptures necessarily deal with things the common people have not yet experienced.
Just as there are people who fight for what they believe is science without really understanding it, there are people who fight for what they believe is moral without really understanding how to persuade anyone. For example gender confusion can be generally understood to be an unnecessary burden on society. Some might have whatever fantasies they choose, but they should not expect the general public to play along with those fantasies. People who like the leadership of Trump got that much right. What they often get terribly wrong is public restroom policy and design. Anyone who cannot operate the long existing latches on public restroom stall doors should not be allowed in public without an immediate adult supervisor. Trump people seem to believe some sort of supervision is necessary for everyone, but who will supervise and from where? The latches have been designed as simply and effectively as possible so that even a young person will have no trouble operating them.
I have tried to explain that everything Trump has ever said since he entered politics is to show how stupid the people are who vote for him. The one exception appearing was his initial ridicule of some of the "science" of covid. He did not realize at first how inordinate the public response would be, how much blind faith in science would dominate public policy. The truth of the matter is that the public reaction to covid was indeed out of all proportion to the real problem. These days Trump avoids that and lets Robert F. Kennedy Jr. play the crazy anti-vaxxer on TV while Trump stands aside.
There is a remote possibility, dare I say, that the "science" of covid was overblown in order to prevent the news that there is no way life began in the first place without an intelligent designer. It is the news by the way. Trial after laboratory trial has shown that no agency known to science can ever get past an insufficient construction for an origin of life.
I will repeat and maybe this time it will get through to you, no matter how good at science you get, most problems in politics cannot begin to be addressed by any science. Some people merely prefer the simplicity of life under communism, and some people merely prefer the abundance of choices under capitalism. That is all, no science. No science will ever provide very good answers to how much money and effort should be spent to educate whom to do what. There is such a thing as "belief" in science that very definitely is the problem in the world today.
I believe the universe has a purpose and until you seriously examine what that might be you will never be able to run anything well.