I suspect, as a creationist, that there is some amount of degraded DNA out there since the Fall. God would not create something useless, but the Creation is not in its perfect, created state.
I suspect that 'junk DNA' will turn out to be much like 'vestigial organs' - massively overstated by evolutionists because of their paradigm, yet with a small remnant of truth. For just as the blind eyes of cave fish and withered wings of flightless island cormorants, etc., seem to be irrefutable examples of vestigial structures, so some DNA does seem clearly degraded and non-functional.
But all of this points back to a time when those structures and DNA did have a function. This is de-evolution, not evolution, and so it is rather ridiculous of evolutionists to bring it up. It is evidence for a degenerating world, not evidence of the opposite such as they need. (For creationists believe in a dynamic world dying since the Fall, not stasis as evolutionists caricature.)
What’s ludicrous is the intemperate labeling of things that we don’t understand.
Scientists have ended up with egg on their faces more times than they can count because of rash pronouncements of *This is the way IT IS, PERIOD.* only to find out later that it wasn’t.
If they’d stop acting as if everything they conclude was written in stone, they’d gain a whole lot more credibility. People would be more inclined to believe them when they state something then. As it is, why should anyone trust them at this point with their track record?