Thanks to Scootie Royale's recent video, I googled and found Rabbi Klinghoffer's recent post about a debate between Richard Dawkins and Britain's chief rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks. Apparently Dawkins was willing to accept the ENCODE project's conclusion that most of our DNA is not junk, and responded that this is exactly what a Darwinist would expect. Yet, as Klinghoffer pointed out, this is exactly the opposite of Dawkins' position as recently as 2009, when he stated that the existence of junk DNA is exactly what Darwinism would predict and Intelligent Design could not explain.
Thanks to professor Larry Moran's vehement challenge to the conclusions of the ENCODE project I remain an agnostic regarding those conclusions and the question of how much of our DNA is junk and how much isn't. But if it turns out that most of our DNA is in fact not junk, but plays an integral role in our lives, then I think it is more of a challenge to the non-design hypothesis, since there is that much more that needs explaining.
If junk DNA counts against ID, then the absence of junk DNA must count for it. Dawkins can't have it both ways.