I had no idea Mr. Gilder was considered a philosopher. I see him more as a pop science writer.
If that is so, what ought a philosopher to say to the raft of "closet metaphysicians" that populate modern biology -- such as Monod, Lewontin, Dawkins, Pinker, Crick, et al.?
In my experience, which is somewhat limited, few philosophers take them seriously as philosophers.
Then you must not be a philosopher. :^)
Speaking as one of those -- by temperament, training, and experience -- perhaps you should note that philosophers attentive to developments in modern science are acutely aware of the "ontological reductionism" implied by the doctrine of scientific materialism, a/k/a metaphysical naturalism. For the thinkers I named (a partial list indeed, two of whom are Nobel laureates no less), we are no longer speaking of a scientific method -- i.e., methodological naturalism -- but of a full-scale worldview, or cosmology, that holds the entire universe reduces to one single principle, the material. If that is not a "philosophy," then what would you call it, HayekRocks?
Need I add that this "philosophy" encroaches not only on the domains of metaphysics and cosmology, but on theology as well?