"junk DNA" a useful term or not?

Hi All,Coming from a background such as mine (science education only to high school, but definately more of a scientific worldview, coupled with a decidedly agnostic frame of mind), I understood the general concept of "junk DNA" to be "non-coding". Most of my aquaintances have hardly ever heard the term, but of those that had, most understood it to mean "useless".It seems to me that they are the "average" Americans. Neither well educated nor poorly educated. This is the audience that needs to have the term better defined. Bio-science scholars already have a better understanding of how the term is meant. Rabid creationists will always mis-use it as a point of attack, no matter what their educational level.The "average" American is the backbone that needs better lay-articles and a better high school science education. They are the ones that need to be targeted to keep creation out of our science curriculum.------------------
Asgara"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Hi Mammuthus,Thanks for replying. I understand "now" that non-coding is a misnomer also. I was referring to my understanding of the term prior to actually searching out information. I was trying to point out the differences in understanding between myself and friends of similar background. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.I definately agree with you about the amount, and level of science programming and lay articles relative to area. I went to school in the northern mid-west and live here currently, but I did spend several years down south. While not wanting to disparage another region, I am glad that I and my children had a northern education. I believe that areas traditionally referred to as "the Bible belt" have a lower priority on the sciences in general.------------------
Asgara"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato