All science relies on unprovable premises. Philosophy of Science 101. It just so happens that we all implicitly accept these premises in our everyday lives. For instance, you have to believe that there is a coherent structure to nature, with more or less unchanging laws. You have to believe that the physical world is real and that we can accurately observe it. However, none of these premises can be proven, and nor do we have any reason to be certain they are true. Go read David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
and take their writings and words seriously, they start with an anti-religious premise.
Really? So which anti-religious premises underly evolutionary biology? I am not aware of any.
If science would stick to proving itself,
Science is not about proof. Nothing in science can be proven in the strict, mathematical sense. Science is about using empirical evidence to figure out how nature works. No theory about how nature works, however, can ever be definitely proven. Evidence can be gathered and experiments run whose outcomes either support theories or reject them. However, even if a theory has been tested a thousand times, and supported by all available evidence (as the neo-Darwinian synthesis has), you can never definitely say a theory is the absolute truth. That's because it is always possible that someone will find some evidence in the future that disproves it. This is as true of modern evolutionary theory as of any other.
there would be no argument but when an Texas A&M science professor won’t give a recommendation to a student unless he renounces his belief in Christianity then we have a problem.
I am not familiar with the details of the case, but your account of it is not consistent with what I have read about it.
Guys, science doesn’t require “belief”.
At some level yes, it does, as I demonstrate above.
As for the fossil records, good luck finding that missing link...
Well, if a link is found, then it's no longer missing. There are many links that were once missing but were later found. This article gives many examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Of all philosophers to recommend, can't you at least choose a sane one?