Honestly, this is a little bit like the “code” question. Is Darwinism dead? Depends what you mean. And part of what you have to understand is the rhetorical purpose of the person who says it. I usually see it said by creationists, often using along the way a dishonest quote-mine of something said by an actual biologist or paleontologist.
When people actually in the sciences say it, it almost always means “Darwinism” (or, sometimes, “Neo-Darwinism”) in some historical sense, and when it is said, one has to be careful: is the speaker saying it is “dead” in the sense that it is actually WRONG, or is the speaker saying it is “dead” as a COMPLETE theory of the origins of diversity (which, frankly, is sort of a given anyhow for almost any body of theory)? That’s a distinction people should sometimes be more careful to make, and not being careful about that results in delicious quote-mines for creationists.
There aren’t a lot of people with a reputation to lose who would say that natural selection upon variation doesn’t happen, or doesn’t account for any of the diversity of living things. But essentially everyone would say that natural selection upon variation is not the whole picture.
So, is Darwinism dead? (I take it that nobody disagrees that Darwin is himself dead.) Depends. Either yes, in the sense that it is incomplete; or no. This depends more on your definitions of “Darwinism” and “dead” than anything else.
So, go to creationist books and you’ll find such things as Robert Shedinger’s ridiculous The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms, in which he describes a “Darwinism” to which nobody ever subscribed, and of which one crucial tenet is that no one may add a jot or tittle to it. He then proceeds to debunk this “Darwinism” by pointing out that we now know about things Darwin didn’t know about: an enterprise which makes about as much sense as shooting an imaginary dead dog in the head.