Frankly, the decisions that we make are chemical reactions. The difference is in the complexity of the decisions that we can make. At that point, though, in order to answer your question, we would need to argue about what one would consider to be a decision that's complex enough and a decision that's not complex enough, and that leans much more into philosophy and ethics rather than science.

I can only tell you that, from a mechanistic point of view, there's not really much distinguishing our decision making process from, say, the decision making of a flatworm

You might be interested in Tomasello's "The Evolution of Agency" where he kind of addresses this very question. It really depends on how you define "making decisions" and "purely chemical reactions" doesn't it - all life is chemical reactions, including when we make decisions, and it's easy for us to apply decision-making language even to systems that are simple enough that we can see them as "purely chemical reactions".

Tomasello defines the notion of "agents" as "feedback-control systems" that he distinguishes from pure stimulus-response systems. In his examples a nematode for example is "stimulus-response"; its behavior is very directly related to its immediate environment. If it runs into food it eats, otherwise it doesn't, and there isn't really a notion of it seeking out food when it's hungry and not when it's not. In contrast and "agent" is a feedback-control system with goals, a perceptual system that checks whether the goal is accomplished at any given time and a behavioral repertoire aimed at accomplishing the goal. In our lineage he sets the appearance of this agency around the evolution of vertebrates, and uses lizards as an example of the most basic level. (he doesn't address other lineages other than to say that various levels of agency clearly evolved convergently a few times; so octopuses and social insects for example would also have these systems). So where a nematode has feeding behavior that's triggered by running into food and other behaviors when food isn't present, a lizard's behavior depends not only on the immediate stimulus but on more abstract goals - in a given environment it might be currently hungry and looking for food, or sated and looking for shade or sun to rest or hide or thermoregulate, or looking to reproduce, etc, and its behavior will depend on and be directed towards accomplishing that goal.

It's interesting that you say "thinks through and makes decisions" as if they're on the same level but the book actually claims that human agency is actually the result of the evolution of several successive layers of feedback-control mechanisms that each allow more flexibility and responsiveness - so for example lizards have a feedback systems that adjusts behavior to achieve goals, and mammals have that and also a higher-level feedback system above that to adjust the goal-seeking behavior itself, mentally "playing out" different ways of accomplishing the goal in order to pick the best one. He describes four such levels for humans and it suggests a variety of ways we could define "think through and make decisions", with different species qualifying or not depending on which we choose.

If I remember my cognitive science classes, all decisions even complex are powered by a person’s neural circuits, in which neurons talk to each other chemically using neurotransmitters. Basically, large groups of constantly-rearranging neurons are what turn what you call “chemical laws” into constantly-evolving decisions.

You've stumbled upon the basis of the debate between free will and determinism. imo, we are merely under the illusion that we're making our own choices. The universe is one infinitely complex system of falling dominoes, with each choice and action just being the result of the parameters set by the ones preceding it. We are all made up of the same basic building blocks, and are thus just subatomic systems obeying the laws of thermodynamics... it just happens to be the case that when a system reaches a certain level of complexity, it is able to think about itself - we are quite literally the universe experiencing its own existence.

Why is this? I don't know. Nobody knows. Consciousness and 'the ability to experience' is one of the most elusive and complex questions facing science and philosophy today. It's my personal belief that there is certainly 'something' more to this whole cosmic experience, but I'm not convinced by religion's answers and believe 'it' to be something so vastly incomprehensible and foreign, we'd never understand it even if the mystery were revealed to us. It isn't something I like to think about too deeply, because unfortunately, it opens up an infinite regress of questions we will likely never have the answers to.