Just a reminder, these are the important points under discussion:
* Proponents of ID themselves clearly suggest that “junk DNA” will mostly or all be functional.
* No unambiguous explanation has been given for why ID must assume that non-coding DNA is functional, especially since they say nothing can be known about the designer or the mechanism.
* The existence of much non-functional DNA would not necessarily refute the idea of design, as many human-designed structures have redundant, non-functional, or even counterproductive characteristics. It would, however, challenge certain assumptions about the designer and the mechanism, which again is why these must be made explicit if the junk DNA argument is to be invoked. Therefore, this is only a useful prediction if one includes details about the mechanism of design.
* The demonstration that all or most non-coding DNA is functional would not support ID to the exclusion of evolution, because a strict interpretation of Darwinian processes has always been taken to propose function as well.
* The demonstration that all or most non-coding DNA in the human genome is functional would still leave the question unanswered as to why the designer put five times more in onion genomes.
* Many functions that have been proposed or demonstrated are dependent on the process of co-option, the same process that is involved in the evolution of complex features.
* Evidence for function in non-coding DNA comes from analyses using evolutionary methods. Other approaches, such as deleting some, have not supported the hypothesis that it is functional.
* The current evidence for function, and other details about how non-coding DNA forms, both suggest that most non-coding DNA is non-functional, or at least that this is the most plausible condition pending much more evidence.
Feel free to comment, but please address these points directly.