The Act of Choosing (2003)
Cover section from Russell Rhyne’s 2003 The Act of Choosing, wherein, citing Kurt Lewin, among others, he argues for a “socio field”, or sociofield as Paris Arnopoulos (1993) calls it, and states that the ability to “choose”, or make a choice, originated 4M years ago and that the “melding of reason with choosing gave our species its edge over all the other hominids”. (Ѻ)
In terminology, choice refers to the mental act of picking or deciding between one or more options or courses of action.

Overview
The act of choosing between different paths, showing adjacent, brings to mind Ernst Mach's sketch and description of turning tendencies of men, while lost in a snow blizzard in the woods, apparently, making the reasoned "choice" to walk in a straight line, but resultantly walking in circles, owing to the gravitational, magnetic, and electromagnetic field lines in their location.

Religion | Science
American orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach, in his 2009 religion vs science debate (V: 6:41-9:30) with Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett argues rather cogently that the concept of free "choice" is the crux of the whole issue:

Religion isn't really only about how the world was created. That's just the sideshow. The chapters in Genesis that deal with creation of the world are only two or three. What religion really is, is the most radical statement in the history of the world, which is that every single one of you possesses the power to ‘choose’ the kind of person you want to be. There is a god who gave us moral commandments and that without god, the laws of do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, are nothing but euphemisms for personal taste, because if there isn’t a god who is the ultimate arbiter and thee standard by which these laws have definition then all we have are two different people who are disagreeing.

I want Sam Harris to please address: a child is born and he has severe Down syndrome. He will never be anything but a burden to his parents. He is a financial strain. Special needs children often even ruin the marriages of their parents. Why should we not euthanize that child? We get so upset that Hitler euthanize the infirm, but doesn't that sort of makes sense? In fact Francis Crick, who won the Nobel Prize for mapping the DNA molecule, said that we should really define birth as two days after parturition so that a baby could be examined for defects and if those defects were sufficiently deleterious we could declare the child to not yet have been born. The only reason we keep that child alive, even though we all live in a society of limited resources, is because life is ‘sacred’, not because of the quality of life, but the sanctity of life. There's no rational reason.

Somewhere right now, there is a police officer in the north of Mexico and he barely arms enough money to support his family and that drug dealer wants to give them a few extra bucks to look at the other way while they smuggle cocaine into the United States, and no one's ever going to find out, and no one's ever going to see, and no one’s ever going to know. Tell me one reason why the police officer should not take the money when he needs it for his family? Give me one moral reason other than the idea that there is justice in the world and that we have the power to choose our moral character? Everything we’ve heard in this conference is that people almost have no choice. Science seems to be going against choice. Biological determinism. Genetic predisposition. Freud said we’re far less far less masters of our own mental household than we otherwise suppose, an out of control id and ego. But religion says that at every moment you have the power to choose.”

The topic of “choice”, in short, is a central one in the hmolsciences and often the deciding factor on whether or not a person is accepting or non-accepting of human molecular theory, the definition of a person as a molecule, chemical, atomic geometry, chemical species, giant molecule, or supermolecule, among other namesakes.

Unbridgeable gap | Two natures
Some will maintain an unbridgeable gap between the two, humans and chemicals, attributing the free choice to the former, but not the latter. The position of American economist Robert Heilbroner is an example of this mindset. He stated in 1953 that: [1]

“There is an unbridgeable gap between the ‘behavior’ of [subatomic particles] and those of human beings who constitute the objects of study of social science. Aside from pure physical reflexes, human behavior cannot be understood without the concept of volition—the unbridgeable capacity to change our minds up to the very last minute. By way of contrast, the elements of nature ‘behave’ as they do for reasons of which we know only one thing: the particles of physics do not ‘choose’ to behave as they do.”

Here Heilbroner distinguishes between "chemical behavior" and "human behavior" the nature of each according to him being of different categories, separated by an unbridgeable gap. Long ago, however, Goethe dismissed all of this incongruity, with his famous advertisement, in which he stated clearly:

"There is, after all, only one nature."

The Google query “is love a choice?”, as contrasted with the alternative (and correct) search term “is love a chemical reaction?”, is one of the most-frequently queried topics in regards to love and relationships.
Choice (Goethe)
The general model that many have in regards to choice: the idea that the hydrogen atom has no choice whatsoever, but that at some blurry "emergent" or ontic opening point in the rise in form change to humans the property of molecules to "chose" (see: ABC model) on their own become evident or something along these lines.

Elective Affinities
See the article "Elective Affinities | IAD: Title decoding" for a detailed discussion of the how "choice" is explained, via hidden code, in the term "elective affinities" or in its original German:

Die [The] + Wahlverwandtschaft [Elective Affinity] + en [s]

Goethe
German polyintellect Johann Goethe in 1809 addressed the question of the nature of choice in the context of physical chemistry by turning to the study of chemical reactions as models of reality. In short, if humans are but evolved, synthesized, or "metamorphosized", as Goethe envisaged things, types of reactive animate chemicals, then just as, e.g., the carbon atom, say in the bonded geometry of the methane molecule CH4, has no "choice" but to debond from its association with its cohort of four hydrogen H atoms, when put into contact with oxygen O2 and ignited, to form the products carbon dioxide CO2 and water H20, via the heat-releasing process of combustion:

 CH_4 + 2O_2 \rightarrow CO_2 + 2H_2O \,

so to do humans, or rather "human molecules", via extrapolate up logic, likewise, have no "choice" in the bonding and debonding interactions, via similar heat-releasing or heat-absorbing processes, that he or she encounters in his or her course of daily reaction existence of combustion-like human chemical reactions (see: HCR theory). Acceptance of this premise, however, requires a completed "revolution" in human thought, particularly so in respect to the world's belief system, of which over 75 percent is dominated by a 5,000-year old soul/karma weight based morality system per culturally-transmitted Anunian theology.

Discussion
(add)

References
1. (a) Heilbroner, Robert. (1953). The Worldly Philosophers, 7th ed. (pgs. 316-17). Penguin, 1999.
(b) Ball, Philip. (2004). Critical Mass - How One Thing Leads to Another (quote, pg. 207). Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
(c) The Worldly Philosophers – Wikipedia.

External links
Choice – Wikipedia.

TDics icon ns