"You've stated the conclusion as a premise ("evolution works just the other side around")"
Nope. I didn't set conclusion as premise, evolution *does* in fact works the other way around, it is a premise (under this conversation constrains): random mutations happen all the time, if they produce a better fit, they get selected by means of higher offspring, if they are deletereal they get off the pool and if they are neutral, they simply accumulate. It's believed -and supported by experimentation, that random mutations on functional DNA tends to be bad more often than good. So when a mutation happens in a non-functional section it usually won't be deletereal, so it's going to be accumulated above the average for functional DNA, hence a testable prediction: intra-species DNA variation within non-functional sections of DNA will be higher than within functional segments.
"so even if it's correct it's not really science"
It is: I sustain an hypothesis (evolution goes from genes to phenotypes, not the other way around) and offer a prediction deducted from it (junk DNA will show higher random wandering than functional DNA). What's your hypothesis that:
a) better explains why junk DNA wanders away more than known to be functional.
b) offers an experiment that will render different results under your hypothesis than mine.
"Supposing there are additional functions of DNA other than coding proteins is a much simpler explanation"
No, it isn't, since it requieres a magic wand. Here, the null hypothesis is that DNA that after roughly 60 years of scrutiny seems to do nothing, in a way that perfectly fits into current theory, does in fact nothing. You prefer to think that something that seemingly does nothing, does nevertheless do something, your turn.
"it's never wise to create dogmas that blockade avenues for research"
That *is* phylosophy, I also read Khun or Feyerabend. But one thing is being open to criticise a theory (of course we can bet, and we should, that there are some functionality hidden in at least part of the so known junk DNA, and in fact we already give epygenetic/regulatory value to quite a lot of what was thought as junk DNA just a decade ago) and another quite different is ignoring the value of any given current theory without proper instrumentation -what else do you offer to your argument which basically can be simplified to "nature is wise and that looks like an unwise waste of effort, so there must be something else going there" that looks better than current knowledge and can be falsified?
"Bednorz and Muller [...] won the Nobel Prize and made a lot of money by keeping both their minds and their options open."
Nope. They won Prize and money because they offered an alternate theory supported by experimental results, not just because their open mindness, or else The Office of the Nobel Laureates would be requiered to give the Prize to those that support Area 51 aliens or the Armstrong Never Reached the Moon too.