One of the big problems with this approach is an early statement in the article, “some plants may make choices”. (I’m sure many others mentioned it, but I’m not reading through all the comments.) Since when do species make choices on their design? The statement obviously means species self design?

Some will say this is just a language mistake. However, this is frequently an approach mistake. Either there are an accumulation of random mutations that result in new species features improving the species for it’s environment, thereby resulting in an increases survival rate and “selection” of the trait, or there is design. Trying to find “intent” leads to a natural focus to find “intendor”. Since that couldn’t be a “designer” - indicative of a Higher Power, people tend to personalize it upon the species itself, or the amorphous “nature”.

Clearly the incredible complexity of not only the accumulation of random genetic mutation to create a non-dangerous species change in an individual combined with a multi-species interaction scheme such as is the case in a pepper which has developed a feature for the spread of seed through consumption by another species yet avoiding consumption by negative impacting species is so mind numbingly complex and statistically unlikely that many of us see direction (and therefore a Director) in the beauty of the possibly-statistically-impossible result.