There's no goal. It is a method!

Gosh, that's why I didn't say science was the simple explanation of observations. I do believe I mentioned NATURAL somewhere.

"explanation of the natural world"

NATURAL. Not SUPERNATURAL.

The more I think about the question, the less I'm thinking there is a "one goal" of science... It would seem to me that there are actually a few different things that science is and has been "used" for that aren't necessarily the same.

The mere Assemblage of Facts and Knowledge is definitely the main goal of some. I'm not sure that if we were suddenly handed a huge database of all the facts of the universe, from some sort of gods or aliens or whatever, that it would be very interesting in and of itself. It seems that the actual hunt and discovery of the knowledge would be some of the novelty that keeps people searching.

Another 'goal' would be the Prediction of Future Events. I think it would go hand in hand with the gathering of knowledge, since the more you know how things currently happen, the more you can predict what will happen next.

From there would be the Control Over Environment 'goal'. The more knowledge, the more prediction, the more you can control future events. This includes pursuit of technology, health care, longevity, etc.

Then there's the Explanation 'goal', which would seem to also include knowledge and prediction, but could be considered a "goal" in and of itself. But what is the difference between somebody who has a "naturalistic explanation" of the universe, and somebody that uses a more religious symbolism for the same purpose?

Currently it seems that the explanation goal and the control/technology goal are the main driving forces of science, but i'm sure they are all pretty intertwined.

So, I dunno... Maybe "goal" isn't exactly what the original post was hoping for? Evolution may not have a "goal" but it does have a direction. Is a better question "where can science take us in the future"? And what happens if we do ever "somehow transcend the limits of humanity and become one or actually become god"?

I think Star Trek dealt with this issue with the 'Omnipotent Q'. It didn't seem pretty.

I appreciate the replies and I guess I should say thanks for the many attempts to, err, "correct" my inquiring mind, but I feel like many of you are really missing the nature of my question. Instead of trying to prove your IQ by pointing out where I am wrong in asking such a question, try and humor me and yourselves into looking 250 years down the line.

Jeff, I recall you saying from one of our previous discussions that people have purposes not evolution. Well, if I'm not mistaken isn't the body of Science made up of people. Therefore there is surely a purpose or end result after which Science is being used by people. Right? If I'm wrong, let me know.

Here's some of the answers so far suggested, lets see if we can work with these and develop a more precise and accurate interpretation.

-Science is aimed at finding explanations for natural phenomena.
-Science doesn't have a goal, Scientists do.
-Science has no goals. It's a METHOD.
-Science is a way to gain understanding.
-The goal of Science is Knowledge itself, nothing more.
-Science is a tool that people use to achieve their personal goals, be it knowledge, fame, monetary reward, etc.
-Science is our door to extropian rapture. (An answer that was projected onto me, but none the less brought into the discussion)

So if we cut out all the fluff, the major theme seems to be: Science is a Method/Tool used by Scientists to gain Understanding/Knowledge about the Universe/Natural World.

My question now becomes, why is it important to gain or acquire knowledge/understanding? Why is it the only thing some people live for? What about experience, what good does complete knowledge of the universe do you if you haven't seen a sun rise, or felt the cool breeze of the ocean.

Couldn't expanding the reach of our experience be just as valid a goal? What lies underneath our desire for knowledge/understanding?