You've submitted that intelligence was the cause. You've observed people creating information. Have you ever observed any intelligent entity other than a person creating information? Are you really "bringing to the table" exactly what you have observed?
I believe the case can be made that intelligence is required to create information, but simply being intelligent does not mean that you must produce information. "Cause" implies that it is a necessary consequence.
I meant to submit that intelligence is a possible cause, perhaps the best available explanation, not necessarily the only cause, although it is the only cause we presently know and have observed. How can one eliminate possibilities that haven't been defined or discovered yet?
“Have you ever observed any intelligent entity other than a person creating information? Are you really “bringing to the table” exactly what you have observed? “
No I have never observed anything other than a human creating information. But a human creates information, not because it is human, but because it has sufficient intelligence. So yes, I think I would be bringing to the table something that has been observed - information created by intelligence — doesn't have to be human.
“I believe the case can be made that intelligence is required to create information, but simply being intelligent does not mean that you must produce information. “Cause” implies that it is a necessary consequence. “
OK, intelligence does not have to create information. But it has created and continues to create information and hence is a potential source whenever and wherever information is found, even the only known source at this time. That is why I think it belongs on the table.