Junk DNA and ID
For example, some claim that ID implies little or no junk DNA? Why? Well, because DNA is like a code, and good code has little extraneous and useless code in it.
ID doesn't make such a claim. Why? Because no one states that the design had to be perfect and even if it started out "perfect" it had to remain that way-
"Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism.
Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important."
In an attempt to demonstrate his point Steve links to the following:
FAQ: Has a lack of intelligent design theory hindered scientific progress?
The site discusses the alleged junk DNA:
"One striking example where a failure to consider intelligent design has stifled scientific progress is with vestigial organs or "junk DNA." Evolution led people to assume they were functionless. Intelligent design might lead scientists to believe they have function."
However that does not support Steve's premise. Non-coding DNA could still be worthless junk and ID would not be phased. What the site suggests is that there is more to functionality than just the ability to code for an amino acid sequence. Some scientists say that the non-coding regions are the "system architecture" of the organism.
Then there are those who say that DNA is not like a code:
The genome isn't a code and we can't read it
And if you think about it, junk DNA, ie DNA with absolutely no function at all, should be an issue for evolutionary theories. Why would something that is not only useless but also carries the burden of using energy to be replicated, be kept for illions of generations? That just does not make sense. IOW under the evoltionary scenario I would be pressed to look for a function in the non-coding DNA sequences.