With respect, I don't agree with your post at all, which is extremely misleading and suggests an incomplete understanding of chemical thermodynamics. Moreover it's filled with a lot of tangential information that doesn't really have much to do with the central question.
I don't feel inclined to pick apart your entire post so I'll stick to just one bit:
On the molecular scale, there is no external driving force. Everything just happens automatically based upon the forces of attraction between one another due to the properties of atoms.
Things don't just happen automatically - this is an absurdly unscientific statement if I've ever heard one. What you perceive as "automatic" is more appropriately referred to as a statistical movement toward lower potential energy: which in chemical systems is free energy, translated into lower enthalpy and higher entropy. "Force of attraction", as you call it, is just a handwaving way of referring to electrostatic potential energy. These forces and energetic interactions determine what is the statistically favorable endpoint of a system at equilibrium. All the references you make to proteins changing conformation and so forth may be true, but ultimately these processes are driven by favorable (downhill) changes in free energy. There's no free lunch. On a macroscopic scale, for an energetically unfavorable change to occur in one place, a correspondingly energetically favorable change has to occur somewhere else, and generally these processes have to be in reasonably close proximity to one another in order to be efficient.
ATP is rightly referred to as a universal energy currency because changing ATP to ADP results in a fairly substantial free energy loss, which can be used to drive energetically unfavorable processes elsewhere. This is no different fundamentally from what happens in a test tube on the lab bench in more simple chemical systems. The complication here is that in the cell there are oodles of thermodynamically unfavorable reactions that need to happen and many of these reactions happen far from the region of the cell where energy is directly generated through glucose (or other) metabolism. ATP is a carrier of energy - metabolism and the electron transport chain in the mitochondria drives the endergonic process of ATP production (energy stored), which can then be used elsewhere due to entropic diffusion of ATP throughout the cellular matrix. You are correct that energy is usually not directly
released by ATP when it is enzymatically converted to ADP, by which I mean energy is not dumped out into the external medium (in which case it would be dispersed as heat). This is not a useful use of energy, so what good would it do the cell? Rather the stored energy is used to directly form other bonds in other biological molecules, or unfavorable changes in protein conformation, and so forth. In this, the ultimate truth is that biology is simply chemistry and chemistry is simply applied thermodynamics. Heat is the final waste product of everything, and each conversion process does release a little heat. There's always a little waste. Where do you think body temperature comes from?
A simple analogy might be gasoline as an energy carrier for making automobiles move. The chemical energy of gasoline ultimately derives from the sun, but cars can't utilize (directly) solar energy, particularly at night, and so we go to gas stations and put gas in our cars, which allows us to drive (literally) energetically unfavorable processes (going up a hill, say). There is of course always an energetic cost to using an energy carrier because no process is 100% efficient, but ultimately gasoline is a medium of stored solar energy than then is converted to do a thermodynamically unfavorable process elsewhere.
So it is with ATP in the cell. Glucose itself is a chemical energy storage medium of course (produced and utilized by plants as a means of storing solar energy to drive chemistry in plant cells) so one might ask why we didn't evolve to utilize the chemical energy of glucose directly rather than doing a currency exchange, so to speak, from glucose to ATP. I'm not evolutionary biologist but if I were to speculate I'd say it's because animals ingest many different chemical energy sources from their diets (glucose, fructose, fats, proteins, etc.) and it would be extremely ineffecient to have a means for animals cells to utilize each of these types of sources for each cellular process. Much better to have a single cellular energy currency, which is exactly what animals cells have. Metabolism may be appropriately described as the body's means of converting all the various types of energy currency harvested through diet into a single currency which can be used universally by all internal cellular components. The currency analogy is actually rather apt - we don't just throw money out onto the street and expect something good to come of it for us directly. We use it for a directed purpose, we exchange it for something else that would not otherwise just come to us spontaneously. Humans could survive without currency as a placeholder for material property, and in fact did for much of its formative period, when goods were directly exchanged. But could you imagine a complex society surviving without a universal currency to efficiently mediate the exchange of goods between invested parties? I couldn't, and nor would it be feasible for cells to survive without a single currency to efficiently mediate the exchange of energy between invested biomolecules. A single economy is far more efficient, and indeed necessary for a complex organism to exist.