I, too, worked in the darkroom for many years before digital came along. I hand processes many thousands film rolls and sheets, and printed many thousands of prints, both color and b/w. Now I work exclusively with digital. I can you with all certainty, from the core of my photographic soul, that there is NO difference. None. And any perception you have to the contrary is based simply on an irrational and emotional attachment to the darkroom.
Your argument that the chemical process is a superior art form because you supposedly do it by hand is ludicrous. You don't mix your own light sensitive solutions, you don't coat your own substrates, you expose simply by pressing a button on the timer, and you develop by rocking a tray of hydroquinone, metol or pyro. So, where exactly is this high art? Because it certainly ain't in the process.
I can tell you this, when I am working on an image, the computer is nothing more than a conduit. A necessary and invisible tool. I'm not staring at an LCD monitor, I'm studying the image. I'm not waving a mouse, I'm burning and dodging with very much those same motions I would use in the darkroom. When I'm working on a digital image, there is no computer. There is only the image and myself.
Which brings me to another and a far more important point. Art is about personal vision, insight and discovery. It's about emotion and connection. It is about the soul. It is not, as you state, about the process. If we were to believe you, the simple fact that an image was chemically created is sufficient cause to elevate it to the stature of true art, no matter how insufficient the resulting photograph.
Thank you, no. I'll stick with my digital process and I will do so with my head held high, for I know that real art is created in the heart, not the darkroom.