I don't think the presence of information necessarily disproves evolution. The point, which I believe is significant, is that the only source of information, at least the kind of complex and specific information in DNA, has been observed to originate only by an intelligent agent. This cause is routinely observed and accepted, except for DNA.
The point is not to take abiogenesis off the table — let's keep working at it. But why, if there is a cause that explains the observables, that we observe everyday, is it not allowed on the table?
On another point, my understanding is that the current theory of evolution is not just about the rearrangement of information, but rather the increase of information as organisms build ever more complex biological systems. This is the difficulty. But even if possible, it does not explain the origin of the first information in DNA.
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.
Simple really...evolution is built upon it. Purposeless, randon, unintelligent, undesigned...evos have to keep it off the table. For obvious reasons. They rely on it, just like they do the courts and every other tactic they use.
ANYthing but the actual science to perpetuate the sham.