Like I mentioned above, I use both film and digital and although I am using digital mostly now I will have no hesitation to use my film camera. I think the links posted by CMOS to be very redundant and based on a personal bias by the author.
First of all, let's take the case of Clark's website. Most 4"X5" film scans are scanned from industrial standard scanners like for example the Howtek drum scanner which is capable of scanning at 8000 dpi resolution with very high d-max and d-min range and resolving power. There is no doubt that a 4X5" film produces better quality than 35mm film, but one just can't take 35mm films scanned using a home-use desktop scanner which costs a couple of thousand and use it as a comparison to 4X5" films scanned using industrial drum scanner that cost 30 to 50 thousands and say that 35mm lacks the resolving power. One too don't compare images shot digitally on a DSLR and compare them to a film scanned from 4X5" transparency which is akin to comparing the number of passenger capacity between a Volvo bus and a Ferrari.
Secondly, we look at Ken Rockwell's website. Mr Rockwell is again using the unfair and redundant argument that 4X5" films scanned at high resolution to be even better than today's pro level DSLR like the Canon 1DsMkII and the Nikon D2X. We have to first look at the format of the camera before judging the quality between film and digital. In another words, compare quality from a 35mm film scanned to that of today's DSLR and compare 120 film scanned to that of today's digital backs. Although you will find that there really isn't any 4X5" digital back available today for comparison to a 4X5" film camera but it doesn't mean that there won't be any in the near future looking at the way digital technology is picking up.
I have personally done a few high-resolution scans from my 35mm films and all I can say is that more dpi during scanning might not necessarily be a good thing. One would be scanning the film grains than the actual image at any resolution higher than 2000 dpi for 35mm films and 4000dpi for 120 films. I have a few 4000dpi scanned images from my 35mm slides that look extremely grainy. Today's DSLR is IMHO way much better than yesteryear's and if you are using a pro range DSLR you will notice that the quality is either on par or even better than that scanned from 35mm films.
The other thing to take note is that it is a lot easier to interpolate a digital picture shot using a DSLR than one scanned from 35mm films. A 5% increment in file size for a scanned image would result in it being slightly blur, but with a picture from a DSLR one have no problems interpolating the files 200% or even more.
To end, there is not really a right and wrong argument here. If one shoot mainly scenery and still life one can choose to use 4X5" films and argue that digital does not come as close as films. But if you are a photojournalist or street shooter, you would probably not be shooting on a 4X5" film camera. So let's be realistic as arguments like these are more often than not redundant and never ending. If one could be arguing about resolving power between DSLR and 4X5" films, so one could also argue about technological advancement between today's DSLR and yesterday's mechanical camera