A few notes on this.
First of all, while it may be true that strict Darwinian evolution was falsified, the implications of this have not been fully realized. Overall, most biologists still default to Darwinian explanation, even when they proclaim the power of neutral theory.
The problem of neutral theory is that there are actually two possible neutral theories, and they are continually confused because of the lack of ID thinking in biology. “Theory A” says that the range of mutations that we observe in organisms are generally neutral, and organisms wander in this mutation space. “Theory B” says that this is true of possible mutations as well, not just actual ones.
Theory A is the one that has actually been demonstrated, but, interestingly, it is indicative of Intelligent Design. That is, it says that the range of mutations and changes which actually occur, are largely limited to a set of potential mutations that work well within the biology of the organism. This presupposes the design in the organism rather than explain it away.
Unfortunately, evidence for Theory A is usually used to prop up Theory B. Theory B says that the mutation space is essentially unconstrained, but without constraint works like neutral evolution. There is simply no reason to think that this is the case.