As it seems to imply that this area of our DNA has no significant value. It seems highly unlikely to me that there is a large mass of DNA in our body that doesn’t affect our overall system. I relate this to people believing for long periods of time that animals cannot tell time or remember things for long periods of time and then later realizing that they can do both.
If we were given an explanation of "this type of DNA used to do X but since Y happens, it is no longer used", I'd be more apt to believe in "junk DNA". Without explanation for what it is for or what it was for, saying it is junk seems naive.
The history of science, and especially biology, suggests that there is a lot of stuff which isn't understood very well. Seeing no importance in an aspect of the natural world can be as much a comment on experimental design and human knowledge ("knowing what to look for") as on the phenomenon ostensibly being studied. Typically "being able to observe an effect" is contingent on some other dependent scientific "knowledge".
If we were given an explanation of "this type of DNA used to do X but since Y happens, it is no longer used", I'd be more apt to believe in "junk DNA". Without explanation for what it is for or what it was for, saying it is junk seems naive.