Thanks for the reply.
The problem is, many people ran with that term and used it and others like "vestigial" to further the ToE.
The existence of large amounts of non-coding DNA (up to 97% in humans) in the genomes of eukaryotes has been used as an argument against intelligent design (and the role of a Creator) and as an argument for the random process of evolution. Two evolutionary theories attempted to explain the reason for the existence of non-coding DNA. One theory stated that non-coding DNA was "junk" that consisted of randomly-produced sequences that had lost their coding ability or partially duplicated genes that were non-functional. The second theory stated that non-coding DNA was "selfish", in that it consisted of DNA that preferentially replicated more efficiently that coding DNA, even though it provided no selective advantage (in fact was somewhat detrimental since it was parasitic). There have always been problems with these arguments, which have been ignored by many of those making these claims. The main question presented by proponents of the "junk" or "selfish" DNA theories is, "Why would a perfect God create flawed DNA which is primarily composed of useless, non-coding regions?" The definitive answer has finally arrived, although for many years there have been strong suggestions of what the non-coding DNA is doing in our genomes.