The scholarly discipline of Probability Mathematics concerns itself with answering the question, "What are the chances of an event," or "What is the likelihood of an event." An upper case letter 'P' is used to designate that chance, likelihood, or probability. The probability of any event must be between zero and one. P=0 means the event cannot happen P=1 means the event definitely happens. P=0.5 or P=1/2 means that in repeated trials the likelihood is that event will happen in half of cases. It does not however necessarily mean that any set of trials will see the event exactly half the time. This lack of exactitude often confuses students. It can be obvious though that the more trials there are, the occurrence of the event will tend to approach half the time. Still confusing, there is no guarantee of exactitude even in extremely large numbers of trials. This property of probabilities can mislead students to believe that the inanimate universe has choices it really does not. There are no choices in the inanimate universe. Only in the cases where the probability is between 0 and 1 "exclusive" is there more than one possibility. From the above notice that when P=0 exactly or P=1 exactly there is only one possibility, not 2. It strains the meaning of the word "probability" when only one thing can possibly happen.
Consider the "probability" that gravity ceases tomorrow. There is no way to calculate that. There is no element, no force, no predecessor event that is known in all the catalogs of science to diminish the force of gravity, much less end it entirely. That being the case the probability that gravity will cease tomorrow is called "zero," it cannot happen. What if it does happen? Since the cause is not found in "nature" (our science) the cause is then outside nature or "supernatural." In other troublesome words some "god" must have done it. When confronted with the reality that there is no science to explain the origin of life, many people refuse to admit that the "supernatural" category has become necessary. They complain that it is a "god of the gaps" and science will soon find the answer it currently lacks. That excuse must have a time limit though. After 200 years and a complete list of elements and agencies, it can indeed become obvious science is not going to find anything.
Two famous "laws" of thermodynamics can be called the good news and the bad news. The "First" Law of Thermodynamics is the good news. It states that "neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed." It gives the impression that the universe has a "permanence." The "Second" Law of Thermodynamics is the bad news. In one formulation it states that every transfer or transformation of energy reduces the amount of energy that can do work." The energy still exists, just as the first law states, but it can no longer do "work." (Here the term "work" is the specific one from physics "w=fd" where 'w' is work, 'f' is force, and 'd' is distance. It does not count the vibrations of molecules from heat in a substance because the net movement of the whole object is zero, d=0, despite what is happening at a molecular level.)
A more descriptive formulation that avoids confusing definitions of "work" in the second law is "every transfer or transformation of energy increase the entropy of the universe." Here the term "entropy" refers to energy at its least useful state, homogeneous heat. The bad news is the universe is heading for that "heat death" in which life is not possible. Another way to describe entropy is "disorder." For energy to do something like work it needs to be in some order. Glucose is the "orderly" molecule. Carbon dioxide and water are the more "disorderly" molecules glucose breaks down to in, among other things, respiration. It would be great if we could just mix carbon dioxide and water with heat and get glucose. The universe however has that tendency to disorder enshrined in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Living plants have the complex chemical factory to reverse the tendency of the universe. That law still means plants need more energy than they put in the glucose to make the glucose. They reverse entropy because they are an "open" system that takes in energy from outside it, from the Sun. In a closed system which includes the Sun, the losses by the Sun are greater than the gains by the plant.
Living plants are not the only things that can facilitate reverse entropy. Sunlight can reverse entropy on the open system of Earth without using living things. Putting water in the sky is a reversal of entropy. Wind energy is caused by temperature differences caused by differences in exposure to the Sun. Although those reversals are trivial compared to the construction of glucose, some people argued that they could yet explain the origin of life. However it is necessary to understand the limits of those reversals.
Creating order or "construction" can happen in open systems, at the same time though it is necessary to consider the destruction or the ordinary progress of the system to disorder or entropy. Some people assume that simply because "construction > 0" any level of construction is possible. However it is not because "destruction > construction" is also true. Notice how that leads to a limited maximum construction, or "characteristic" construction.
On the molecular level, where the origin of life apparently must have happened, all the agencies of construction are also agencies of destruction. Whichever force is moving the building blocks around and putting them in place also knocks them out of place. Before life begins the smaller molecules have the competitive advantage over the larger ones. Even in the "RNA soup" where the nature of the molecules can favor linking, unless the linking proceeds in a proper sequence it can break longer chains. Laboratory observations will show that with each addition to a molecule, the greater the chance it will be broken, and at some size the chance of the molecule being broken becomes P=1. Recall that when P=1 it strains the meaning of the word probability. Rather than saying the larger molecule will "probably" break, it is more correct to say that it definitely will break, because the possibility of it not breaking ceased to exist.
It is not necessary to continue observing experiments where the characteristic maximum construction has been reached. There can be no "probability" whatsoever that "construction > 0" takes construction beyond the limit for that agency and set of materials.
Another area where a lack of exactitude can confuse students is Statistical Analysis. The problems people had with science (or Statistical Analysis) during covid were covered in this article. The Fine Art of Data Presentaion
Too many voters apparently have no idea how much science they are misreading. They seem determined to ignore important truth. It is not just one party, it's both. The good news is the truth will move forward anyway, the bad news is it might catch some people by surprise.