Paul is of course reading this and ... agrees that evolution is a very slow way way to deal with problems or inadequacies and has "other difficulties/sacrifices built in". And that "science" (and personal lives) may make good use of "goals" and in that sense both may be somewhat different from evolution.

A key point here is that evolution does not catalogue "problems or inadequacies". It simply explores possible new forms and, in the course of doing so, it quite effectively (if slowly) comes up with solutions to "problems or inadequacies" (and, of course, also creates new ones). Evolution is not itself an argument for or against the benefits of "purposefulness"; it is only a reminder that a lot can be done (and is being done) without it, simply by exploring novelty ("playfulness is ... not only to be enjoyed but to be accorded high value for its fundamental role in the success of all organisms, including humans.") Creativity/novelty generation is adaptive.

Science can and I think frequently does operate in that mode. So let me give a slightly revised version of your "silly", which I actually don't think is:

• A series of current questions are posed for which there don't currently exist answers
• New tentative answers are proposed and new observations are made to see which existing questions yield a richer array of new observations, tentative answers, and new questions
• There is no fixed "final goal" but the process has a feedback built into it that gives it a directional character: over time the sophistication of both questions and tentative answers increases since they reflect ever greater numbers of observations.

That's what is sometimes called "pure" science, and it is, I think, quite analogous to biological evolution with one important difference: it depends on entities (like ourselves) that are capable of conceiving "questions", ie are curious about what might be instead of simply dealing with what is at any given time. And that capability in turn can be used to support a sense of having a "goal", ie of wanting oneself (and/or things around one) to move in some particular direction. For "pure" scientists, that goal might be conceived by themselves (and others) as exploring the (constantly changing) unknown, ie to satisfy "curiousity".

In practice, entities like us typically have lots of goals, including varying senses of "problems or inadequacies in the world" that we "suspect science can improve". My point is not at all to denigrate such goals. They play an enormously important role in defining "current questions ... for which there don't currently exist answers" and so take science in productive directions in which it might not otherwise go. And indeed science, so influenced, does sometimes come up with new and successful ways to deal with "troublesome questions". So "goals" can and do play a useful role in science. And may, in turn, in life.

What's worth keeping in mind though is that "goals" are not guaranteed to be achievable, by science or any other activity. In addition, goals usually have a "local" character, ie they involve a commitment to bringing about a particular change in a particular context. When one has achieved a "goal", one typically finds that itself creates "troublesome questions" in places one hadn't thought about . Moreover, goals are, by their very nature, different in different people and potentially (for better or for worse) different at different times in particular people.

None of this says "goals" aren't important. They can indeed speed up the processes of exploration inherent in both biological evolution and "pure" science/inquiry, and open up new directions of exploration. And they can, of course, also provide some useful coherence is individual lives. I would never argue that "evolution" is the only productive game in town. I would though strongly argue that "goals" are, similarly, also not the only productive game in town. We've got both and need not set either against the other. "Its all open to reconsideration and renewal", the usefulness of evoluton as well as the usefulness of both particular goals and goals in general.

Maybe that's the route to maximum "functionality"? "If you can dream - and not make dreams your master ..."?