No. Back in the old days, the backmarkers were so much slower than the Lotuses, Virgins and HRTs are we have today.
Furthermore, the rule isn't even adhered to! The only time it was enforced was in Melbourne. 
This isn't quite true as the rule isn't a blanket definitive rule, specifically it says:
36.3 During Q1, any driver whose best lap exceeds 107% of the fastest time set during that session will not be allowed to take part in the race. Under exceptional circumstances however,
which may include setting a suitable lap time in a free practice session, the stewards may permit the car to start the race.... etc.
There's not really been a time it's needed to be enforced since Melbourne as in the vast majority, if not all, cases, the affected car / team has been able to demonstrate that they are capable of running in the race within the 107% requirement, which is a part of the rule as much as the exclusion.
For the main question from the OP though? Personally, I think it's something that should be enforced more harshly at the beginning of a season when the cars are untested in race conditions, but once they've proven themselves generally capable, I don't really see the need for continuing it unless something dramatic happens mid season.
Another problem that I'm not comfortable with is the dominant car argument. Ok, it's unlikely, but lets say that someone like Adrian Newey designs another moster of a car that happens to be say a second or a second and a half faster than the next best team. A backmarker team could potentially fall foul of the 107% rule even though they are running within 107% of the entire field with the exception of that anomylously quick team. Is it fair to exclude them as a potential danger on that basis? I'd say absolutely not.
On the positive side, the current rule does allow the flexibility for exceptions to be allowed - as it should.
Favourite racing series: F1, Indycar, NASCAR, GP2, F3, Formula E, Trophee Andros, DTM, WTCC, BTCC, World Endurance... etc. etc.
