No. It merely shows the method God may have used.
No. Any string of logic that attempts to disprove God will defeat itself.There is nothing even close to adequately explaining how 'evolution' began. On the other hand, that may not necessarily remain true (see also: abiogenesis research), but even if we have a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life, this will do nothing to disprove the claim that God exists.
There is no proof of God existing, though there is also no proof that he doesn't. It's all a matter of belief, until we can prove or disprove God's existence.
Science doesn’t have the processes to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science studies and attempts to explain only the natural world while God, in most religions, is supernatural.
Only if you can disprove/prove the existence of God.
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. It is a philosophical stance that asserts that there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power.
There is no "the" agnostic. An agnostic is a person whom does not see enough evidence to prove or disprove God's existence, and they don't really dwell on it.
This question has no known answer. The existence of God cannot be proved. You either believe in God or you don't. However, it's much easier to show the existence of evolution. So, many people would feel that evolution is the answer. It's likely that a lot of people who believe in God also believe in evolution. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. However, there will also be a body of people who feel everything was created by God.
Yes
None have as of yet.
Evolution was the starting point for Reincarnation.
They do not. Nothing "disproves" evolution. It is impossible to prove or disprove anything scientifically. That's a basic rule of science: everything is subjected to doubt.
In Discourse on Method it would seem that he indeed does disprove God's existence only to hastily come up with an excuse as to how, despite all the evidence previously provided, that God actually exists. The logical leap to get there as you might find isn't terribly convincing, but convincing enough for the clergy at the time as he was never reprimanded for the work. If you doubt that he disproved God, consider his epitaph: "He who hides well lives well." For someone using reason to disproves God's existence in the time that he lived, this seems especially apt.