It would not be in the best interest of cognitive science to simply trade one set of strengths for another. Rather, a set of principles which is able to capture both sorts of behavior should be sought. It seems, in other words, that van Gelder has neglected the really interesting, and difficult, question of how a dynamical system could give rise to representational behavior and thus human-style intelligence. In sum, claiming cognitive systems are dynamical seems fundamentally right. But, it seems equally wrong to emphasize continuity, proclaim low-dimensional models superior, and all but dismiss the importance of representation to understanding human cognition.
Dynamical models are clearly desirable.
Van Gelder's dynamicism is another matter.