As a professional systematist**, this is the kind of claptrap I have to deal with on a daily basis. I use both types of data (morphological and DNA) and people should understand that molecular biology does not replace morphological taxonomy, but it provides another useful source of data. What is used for DNA data these days are a tiny part (especially DNA barcodes) of the functional organism, and the phenotype comes about in ways we do not completely understand yet. Because of the attitude shown in this post, several generations of biologists are not taught how to identify animals of any sort; zoological and botanical survey courses are being dropped from cirricula at most universities, especially here in Australia. I won't even work with Australian students anymore, because they both don't know anything basic, and because of their background seem more interested in their smart phone than looking down a microscope. So yes, taxonomists like me are becoming a rarity, both because of declining interest but also because of a lack of jobs for anyone who wants to take up the field. And yet I regularly get requests from the molecular only students to tell them what they have -- for free.
**((I name species and groups, but I am also interested in evolution biogeography etc))