Historians have long stopped using the term "Dark Ages" because it is biased and does not reflect the realities of the Middle Ages. Occasionally you might see the term pop up, but it would be used as a selling's pitch rather than as a serious term.
Gigagpie is quite correct. The term "Dark Ages" came about in during the Renaissance and came to mean, in it's simplest term, 'not Roman'. Renaissance historians came to criticize the "Dark Ages" as a period of backwardness whereas the Roman period was seen as "light". So right off the bat, the term is biased. It does not reflect the realities of the Middle Ages. Medieval Europe was no Rome, but it was not backward either. There were education centers, there were scientific experiments, there were technological improvements.
Then some people claim that it is "dark" because of the lack of documentation. But even that is no longer true. We know more about the Middle Ages than we do about certain periods in Antiquity or the Collapse of the Bronze Age.
Paper has this nasty habit of burning, so a lot of Latin texts had been lost, but often, there were Greek copies in the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire was really the Eastern Roman Empire. Though they spoke Greek, they referred to themselves as Romans. Now, most Western Europeans did not speak Greek or could understand it. They knew Latin and their languages. In the mean time, Arabic scholars copied down Greek texts, which, when rediscovered, were translated back into a language Western Europeans could understand.
The chivalric code of honor found a home in Victorian Britain. Victorians made the code of chivalry fit their 19th values rather than to clearly depict what the code was really like. For instance, the "Damsel in distress" was a product of Victorian Britain.