So by that logic (taken slightly out of context I will admit) a $10 drugstore disposable camera takes just as good of pictures as a professional level SLR since they both use the same 35mm film with the same number of phospors/mm?

No, by that logic a single shot from 8mm camera can't give acceptable large blow-ups regardless of lens quality and perfect control over exposure and focus the auther might have had, because of insuficient resolution.

Now, I agree that not everybody does architectural or documentary photography (or photoghraph Pink Floyd lyrics in tiny print ) and that it is possible to use photochemical films' grain as a creative tool, but I would like to have all resolution I can at my disposal, and lower it only if I want to. And again, I agree that 6"x9" studio sheet film camera's resolution will not save incompetently taken shot (or one where the camera was second-guessing the photographer).

5"x8" print from 2MP camera will have some 10 pixels per millimeter (roughly equivalent to 300dpi) which I think should, with some antialiasing and printer dot bleeding be enough to avoid artifacts like staircasing and moiré, but just barely. Again, the photographer can avoid some of these artifacts by not photographing motifs where they might become visible (and taking angles etc into account), but I think this is a problem where technological brute force (i.e. resolution) is a better solution (if we can aford it ).