I'm not sure what your point is.
ETA - This comment was a response to Jim, not Dan.
Well, you said that the term [junk DNA] "was used to describe DNA for which geneticists hadn't found the purpose yet," which made it sound like just any old normal DNA, but the article puts junk DNA in a separate class described as "not involved in gene activity." It is also "not affected by natural selection" and changes on it "have no consequences" like they do on regular DNA. Also, the article points out that some organisms get rid of it rather quickly, just as if you would put the trash out. At the end, the article quotes a scientist named Petrov, who said, "People will continue to argue about whether this DNA is truly junk DNA or whether it does something for the organism. That's still undecided, but the pendulum has now swung toward junk.” This seems to put in doubt your statement that "No scientist, including Ohno, ever thought that the DNA had no use, they just didn't know what it was used for yet."
I seriously doubt that any Intelligent Design advocate ever used the theory to predict that "junk DNA" has a purpose. To say that the theory "would predict it," after the fact is not really saying much. I did a thought experiment in which I wondered what the ID guys would say if it had definitely been shown that junk DNA is truly junk. Would they say, "Well, since our theory would predict that it does have a purpose, this finding is a blow to our theory"? Probably not.
In any event, I agree completely with you now on this point as it relates to junk DNA and Intelligent Design. There's no science or even science-like test of a prediction going on there as it relates to that.