I think they've painted themselves into a corner. They are so opposed to evolution and modern science that they will take any opportunity to discredit it. They saw a chance to do so about twenty years ago when they became aware of the controversy surrounding junk DNA. This was their chance to (pretend to) rely on real science to back their position. By taking a stance against junk DNA they could seen to be supporting the latest evidence ... or so they thought.
Intelligent Design Creationists claim that they "predicted" that most our genome would be functional. They claim that "Darwinists" predicted junk DNA. The second part isn't true since evolutionary theory is silent on whether some genomes could become bloated with junk DNA or not. However, the ID proponents are sticking to their guns in spite of the growing consensus that most of our genome is junk.
Trash Be Gone: Why Are Biologists Lashing Out Against Empirically Verified Research Results?.
The gist of his argument is that "Darwinists" are fighting the ENCODE claim because they are committed to the evolutionary worldview ....
... when a powerful evolutionary paradigm is threatened by the findings of molecular biology, don't expect the establishment to quickly concede defeat. Indeed, the entire debate over neo-Darwinian evolution and intelligent design (ID) may turn on the outcome of this question.What's interesting is that Casey Luskin is staking the reputation of Intelligent Design Creationism on the outcome of a real scientific controversy that will be decided by scientist, not creationists. He's admitting that ID may be refuted if it turns out that most of our genome is junk.
That's a big
This report [ENCODE] was a game-changer in the debate over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design because, since the mid-1990s, ID theorists had been predicting that noncoding DNA would turn out to have function, and ID critics had been arguing that junk DNA drove a stake through the heart of ID.Why would Casey Luskin take such a risk? It's because he is very confident that he has caught Darwinists with their pants down and Intelligent Design Creationists are on the side of the science experts.
Darwin defenders weren't going to take ENCODE's data sitting down. But this time, they found themselves in an unaccustomed position. Many Darwinians take great assurance in knowing they stand in the scientific majority, which enables them to appeal to the consensus and dismiss challengers as "deniers." But in the post-ENCODE world, Darwin defenders have found themselves challenging the consensus of an international body of leading molecular biologists who have discovered that the vast majority of human DNA has biochemical function.Let's make sure we remember what the Intelligent Design Creationists are saying in 2015. In a few years they will have to eat their words and scrabble to explain why the validity of ID didn't really turn on the outcome of this question.
How could they possibly oppose such empirically based conclusions? The same way they always defend their theory: by assuming an evolutionary viewpoint is correct and reinterpreting the data in light of their paradigm--and by personally attacking those who challenge their position.
Either that, or Intelligent Design Creationism will have been falsified and disappear.