Why use evidence so far removed from the source? A says B says C wrote that D did this. Go straight to C wrote that D did this.
Did Darwin repent? Did he become a believer in God, or a Christian? The answer to both questions is a resounding no. Creationists and Christians do themselves no favor by circulating, even if inadvertently through good intentions, stories such as these that ultimately are without foundation. When the truth finally does come out (and eventually it will!), it reflects poorly on those who propagate such falsehoods.
I'm not sure the conclusions expressed in the first sentence can be reached, but the link provides enough to "reasonably" exclude a deathbed conversion(or reaffirmation).
The whole thing is utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether evolution is good science. If, however, what creationists call "Darwinism" were really some kind of cult, and if the cult leader renounced his doctrines, then it would all crumble. But Darwin's recanting -- even if he did such a thing -- would be no more significant than if Isaac Newton announced on his deathbed that: "Gravity is bunk!" All that such a statement would prove would be that poor ol' Newton was bonkers at the end. But gravity would still be here to stay. Ditto with evolution. [I know you understand this. Please don't respond by saying: "But Newton didn't die in bed."]