Only evolutionists, real scientists knew very well that the rest has tremendous importance.
You're both conveniently overlooking the fact mentioned in the article that only 3% of the non-coding DNA has been found to be "conserved" (IOW varies less among organisms than it should if evolving without functional constraint, therefore suggesting that it has some sequence dependent function).
This leaves the vast majority of "junk" DNA as still, to all appearance, junk.
Only if this article is taken in isolation. We know of the importance of telomeres, centromeres, LINES, SINES, GATAs, GC-rich regions, etc., all "junk DNA". Actual junk has dwindled to about 40% of the genome. But that term "junk" is catchy and appealing.
The article is full of incorrect facts such as that only 2% of DNA is in genes. It is more like 5%. Further in one fell swoop it was found that some 10% of DNA which evolutionists claimed was nonsense and were looking for DNA 'fossils' in was found to have a very important role - acting as a zipper during cell replication and division. Every day new things are found in junk DNA. In fact, one scientists says that genes are just factories, it is the DNA outside the genes that makes organisms work, and that is doubtlessly true. Genes by themselves do nothing, they have to be told what to do and when to do it.
As to the 3% - (if true, since this is clearly an evolutionist slanted article) it means nothing at all. In fact it means that each creature is made different and is programmed differently. If this were the 'fossils' of previous creatures, then much of that DNA should be just about exactly the same in all species in the same 'branch' of the evolutionary tree.