No, quite the opposite.
Today Darwin's basic idea -- of speciation through 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection -- is far more observed fact than mere theory.
Today in addition to fossils, speciation can be tracked genetically short-term (aka "micro") and longer-term (aka "macro").
So nothing about basic evolution theory is "in crisis".
Of course there are still many unanswered questions -- indeed it appears that every new discovery raises more questions than it answers.
Zeneta: "Their tactics read like mirror images of the 'Global Warming' crowd.
This is something that any objective person should find at least a bit curious."
If I may draw an analogy -- modern science has clearly defined borders separating what is from what is not science.
And just as a nation which refuses to defend its borders will eventually find itself transformed into something else, so science, to remain science, must defend its own borders.
As for "global warming tactics", not at all clear what that means, and I reject the equivalency of evolution and AGW.
Consider: in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) there is an actual scientific debate, regarding how much of whatever changes we might observe are "man-made" and how much are strictly natural cycles.
Given actual scientific debate in progress, we non-scientists can legitimately take sides, and root for our favorite ideas.
By contrast, in Evolution there's no such debate amongst scientists, since the basic premises and conclusions are fully accepted.
Sure, on many related subjects there is much debate, but that is merely science doing what science does -- it's how science operates, through examination of evidence, proposals, debates, predictions and more examination of data.
So that's not "crisis", that's just science.
Zeneta: "For the Evolutionist, they are left with 'Panspermia' as their only out.
Panspermia comes with its own set of very serious problems."
The Panspermia hypothesis, whatever its attractions might be, is far from the "only out" regarding origins of life ideas.
And since origins of life are not, strictly speaking, part of evolution theory, therefore whatever new discoveries or debates regarding OOL cannot be a "crisis" in evolution.
So, if your big issue is "origins of life", then we need to be clear about it: there is no well-established theory regarding how life began on Earth.
There are only a large number of hypotheses being investigated, none yet confirmed as theory.
Panspermia is just one hypothesis, and the whole field is changing rapidly, as new ideas are proposed & tested.
Finally, you can find many books discussing these subjects, amongst which I have often recommended the following:
from 2012 & 2015:
Both books are general reader level, and can bring you up-to-date on where the science stands.
From them you will soon learn that Panspermia is far from the only viable idea out there.
Zeneta: "Here’s another website for the Objective reader; "
Another non-objective site hoping for appeal to "objective" readers?
Again, I'd say you're misusing that word "objective".