>>I am afraid it would require a good deal of time and effort to persuade me to base my world view upon physics and evolutionary biology.<<

You underestimate yourself. There are many books available that are written for the layman; I prefer Richard Dawkins, Edward O. Wilson and Jared Diamond.

>>The reason is that I find it more plausible that physics and evolutionary biology themselves are based upon a certain world view, one that I cannot see to be rendered valid merely because it is widely shared and largely unexamined.<<

The science disciplines are based on a single view, that the best way to acquire knowledge is through experimentation and observation.

>>So your argument would necessarily go in a circle for me by saying that within the world view of physics and evolutionary biology the world view contains no serious irregularities and antinomies - an assertion, by the way, of utmost doubtfulness even on its face.<<

I’m referring to the consilence of diverse fields like archaeology, geology, and comparative physiology, forming a single consistent narrative. You can doubt this if you want but that doesn’t change the broad interdisciplinary agreement.

>>Science adds to our power without increasing our wisdom, and may perhaps, by giving us false confidence, even subtract somewhat from such wisdom as we have managed to build up over the ages.<<

Most scientists don’t presume to know everything but the Scientific Method has proven to be our greatest instrument to acquire knowledge and refute folklore and dogma. The wisdom achieved by the use of science is unparalleled.