Could you elaborate on what you mean by ‘personal’ [God] ?

In short, consciousness, which amounts to “I am”. But to elaborate on it a bit more — when one looks close enough, one will realize that what we causally call “personality” (i.e. body-mind complex) has no personality at all. That is, it has no inherent subjective viewpoint, merely a lot of various properties one of which is a kind of reflective awareness of being witnessed by “I” (which is why I’m so anal about the distinction between awareness and consciousness, I guess).

Then, in the course of our lives, we are trained to associate this awareness with the actual “source of I-ness”, i.e. consciousness. Thus, you may say that “Divine Consciousness” is impersonal in the sense that it is beyond what we causally call personality, but in reality there is no other “I” than that of God.

All in all, there’s only one persona to the whole existence, and so, strictly speaking, e.g. our conversation is me talking to myself via “interfaces” of Graham Pemberton and Sender Spike, which even on the level of “interfaces” are no other than me. And that is true from the standpoint of each and every “interface”.

So, it naturally follows that God is as personal as it gets.

You seem to be interpreting neo-Darwinism from a strictly scientific perspective without the accompanying philosophy, where the word ‘purpose’ is something of a heresy/swear-word.

Yes, as you say, I’m interested only in the mechanics (which is simply a marvel to behold). The purpose, as I’ve said, is inherent. Exactly as with the ultimate meaning of life, which is, well, the life itself. Quite solipsistic, but it is what it is.

I still think there’s more to it, however.

And what would that be? I think you are missing/searching for that “more” only because (I suppose) you consider God and Graham Pemberton as two separate entities. And if that’s the case, you should see that there are actually three “personae” — God, Graham Pemberton, and the real you. The question then is, who are you?