Well, this isn't really a new discussion as even with film some people saw the use of being more in control of the process than others.
While JPEG and RAW seems like they are two very different approaches, I would argue that they basically are very similar. At some point or another all that raw data needs to be converted to something the human eye can appreciate. We can let the camera or some external software make an automated attempt or we can take control ourselves. No doubt automated software gets better for each generation, but until it can read my mind and make the result match what I envisioned for the photo, JPEG cannot replace RAW for me.
However I would agree with Gene that for most people JPEG is good enough or even superior. If you don't know or have any interest in learning how to adjust a RAW image there is also a fair chance that you will make a mess of the conversion. Good photography doesn't start with a good RAW conversion. It's definitely about being behind the camera, about the composition, the color and the light. It never started in the lab with film either, yet many developed their own film.
I used to take a lot of bug macros at high magnifications, often with flash and judging by the results I have no doubt that a carefully processed RAW is far superior to a JPEG. Why do I say that? Because these kind of shots often require lots of adjustments. The white balance for instance can be a nightmare to get right at shooting time. For instance the color of the flower the bug is perched on often taints the light, resulting in very hard to remove casts. Also contrast adjustments were crucial to me in these situations as this can differ wildly from shot to shot. Same with early morning shots of "sleeping" (the are not actually asleep, just cold and very, very still) bugs.
I would also often dodge and burn flash photos or make different exposures from the same RAW and mix them together by hand for better detail in highlights and shadows. Better flash diffusion could have helped some, but this is always an ongoing process for macro photographers and I believe most will continue to try improving their flash setup over time. Also as the depth of field is very limited some selective sharpening was very useful. As I already need to do all those adjustments to my photos JPEG made no sense at all. If the camera would do this auto-magically, then I would be happy to let it.
Now I do mostly floral photography, but even though I need to make far less adjustment with these I think carefully selected contrast and fine tuned white balance makes a real difference. I already spend a lot of time using the tripod and hunting the best possible light and trying different compositions, so RAW is just a natural part of that process.
The most difficult part for me is not the RAW conversion as such, it is the image selection. What makes this particular image good or bad? That's what I think is the most time consuming part.
