No it doesn't. It tries to maximize fun. It might maximize entropy as a side effect, but saying that we act to maximize entropy is as ludicrous as saying cows act to maximize atmospheric methane content. You're confusing a side-effect with the real goal.

Really? How do you know that? Are plants trying to maximise "fun"? Is "fun" even a measurable quantity?

If "fun" is being maximised, why is there so much suffering in the world? If two systems are in contention, is it really the one that is having the most fun that will win? The "fun-as-maximand" theory seems trivially refuted by the facts.

"Fun" - if we are trying to treat the concept seriously - is better characterised as the proxy that brains use for the inclusive fitness of their associated organism.

There's a scientific literature on the subject of what God's utility function is. Entire books have been written about the topic. I'm familiar with this literature, are you?

Terms like "goals" and "maximization" only refer, in the literal sense, to the computations of consequentialist thinking beings (consequentialist in this case meaning a being that can forecast the future, not the moral theory). A goal is a forecast of the future a consequentialist assigns favorable utility to. Maximizing refers to a consequentialist that values a certain property in the future so much it assigns very favorable utility to increasing it as much as possible. This is the only appropriate time to literally use the terms "goal" and "maximize," all other times are metaphorical.

We had better talk about "optimization" then, or we will talk past each other.

Evolution and other trends do not literally maximize anything.

Really? How do you know that? Evolution is a gigantic optimization process with a maximand. You claimed above that it is "fun" - and my claim is that it is entropy. As I say, there's a substantial scientific literature on the topic - have you looked at it?