I can't speak specifically with reference to the Dutch - I've never seen that accusation leveled against them, but I won't say it wasn't. Here's what I do know:

Mechanical devices, for one, were often seen as quite suspect. Why? The archetypal mechanical device in the medieval west was the automaton of the romances, a device which usually resembled a human, or sometimes an animal. A good example of this is in Benoit de Sainte-Maure's Roman de Troie (around 1165), in which Hector's sickroom, known as the Chambre des Beautes, was set up by "three poets, learned teachers, who were well-versed in the knowledge of necromancy." The room contained four pillars, and on each "there was a figure of great beauty, cast in metal. The two most beautiful were in the form of maidens; the other two, of youths, no man had looked upon more beautiful." (Truitt 2004: 167) Each of the automata had special powers; one, for example, performed gymastics and summoned other automata.

Right there you can start to see some of the ambivalence: the automata serve a positive purpose narratively, but their creation contains the distinct suggestion of necromancy ("nigromance"), which is not so good. This is not distinctive to this particular work; Truitt observes that the creators of automata are described as men "who fashion the automata 'par enchantment,' 'par nigromance,' 'par art,' or 'par augure'" (2004: 177). Two of those terms are, again, distinctly suspect: enchantment and augury, which both suggest involvement with occult forces that might (or might not) be infernal.

That's not all: when such devices were actually built in the 14th century, they fell under suspiscion for breaking the biblical prohibition on idolatry, or even if they didn't, for inspiring the concupiscienta oculorum, the "sin of the eyes which leads to still graver sins." (Lightsey 2007: 116). And that's just automata, which were unusally prominent but by no means the only type of innovation that occured during the middle ages.

Innovations more generally also fell under suspiscion of distracting from the substantial in favor of the novel. Consider, for example, Chaucer's Squire's Tale, in which a famous mechanical brass horse appears. He describes this horse as being a "gyn", a middle english term which is etymologically linked to the modern english term "engine". However, the valence is quite different; a gyn could refer to "deceptive tactics and the concealment of motivating factors, both conceptual and mechanistic" (Middle English Dictionary entry for "engin"). In the context of the tale, the horse is compared to the sleight of hand of jugglers, the deception of the trojan horse, and the magic of a fairy - all things which disguise their substance in favor of their surface. As Claire Ingham argues, "newefangelnesse' emerges as the stuff of smoke and mirrors, empty attraction to newness for its own sake" (2009: 68).

Still other authors suspected technology of serving as a prosthetic that would enable the extension of human sin while emphasizing the decline of the world under human rule and human distance from paradise. That's not to say that technology as prosthetic was bad in all cases; "the tools that improved man's earthly estate were looked upon in a positive light, and Mankind the Toolmaker was praised by Augustine" (Lightsey 2007: 157). But the prosthetic could "decieve the technician into believing that it can provide both God-like control over the natural world and the ultimate answers to philosophical, instead of merely technical questions" (Lionarons 1993: 385). Alexander the Great appears as one such individual in Gower's Confessio Amantis, in which he develops a flying machine and attempts to fly towards heaven, only to be thrown down by the will of God himself. In Mandeville's Travels, technology is used to build the false paradise of the Assassins which draws people away from its divine example and into a murderous cult.

So basically, technological innovation was pretty suspect. There was the possible black magic involved in its creation, the idolatry prohibition and the related sins to worry about, the hiding of substance with flashy surface, and the way it enabled new sins and seperated man from paradise to worry about. That is, of course, a view from the literate elites, but I think it captures the attitude rather well.

Cited: E. R. Truitt, "Trei Poete, Sages Dotors, Qui Mout Sorent Di Nigromance: Knowledge and Automata in Twelfth-Century French Literature" (2004)

Scott Lightsey, Manmade Marvels in Medieval Culture and Literature (2007)

Patricia Claire Ingham, "Little Nothings: the Squire's Tale and the Ambition of Gadgets" (2009)

Joyce Tally Lionarons, "Magic, Machines, and Deception: Technology in the Canterbury Tales" (1993)

our good friend the Middle English Dictionary at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-idx?type=id&id=MED13810

The book of John Mandeville out at http://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/kohanski-and-benson-the-book-of-john-mandeville

and the Squire's Tale (with interlinear translation!) at http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/teachslf/sqt-par.htm#TALE

Edit: later posters have brought this argument - particularly the final conclusion - into question, which I think is perfectly legitimate. On reflection, I would walk back the part after "so basically" quite a bit, but I think it would be bad etiquette to do so now. My argument here focuses on arguments which appear in literature, particularly fiction, and should be considered in that light, rather than in terms of medieval people as a whole.