Submitted by Automa??o e Estat?stica (sst@bczm.ufrn.br) on 2016-10-11T21:52:15Z No. of bitstreams: 1 SilviaReginaGroto_TESE.pdf: 2054580 bytes, checksum: 3099bc80643c665563f1301ac1a676e4 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Arlan Eloi Leite Silva (eloihistoriador@yahoo.com.br) on 2016-10-17T20:45:51Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 SilviaReginaGroto_TESE.pdf: 2054580 bytes, checksum: 3099bc80643c665563f1301ac1a676e4 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-10-17T20:45:51Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 SilviaReginaGroto_TESE.pdf: 2054580 bytes, checksum: 3099bc80643c665563f1301ac1a676e4 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-03-18 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior (CAPES) / Neste estudo, analisamos o debate evolu??o versus design inteligente ? luz da epistemologia de Ludwik Fleck (1896-1961), principalmente no que refere ?s categorias estilo de pensamento, coletivo de pensamento, c?rculos esot?rico e exot?rico, tr?fego intercoletivo de ideias e desvios de significado. A an?lise a partir desse referencial pretende contribuir para o ensino da evolu??o biol?gica - marcado por tens?es, disputas e pontos de vista discordantes nas salas de aula de ci?ncias e de biologia -, considerando a ?compreens?o? como objetivo ?ltimo do ensino de evolu??o. A recolha de dados envolveu a an?lise documental, predominantemente. A metodologia da An?lise Textual Discursiva (ATD) fundamentou a an?lise a partir de duas perspectivas: a sincr?nica, que foi realizada por meio de documentos produzidos por indiv?duos e/ou grupos espec?ficos vinculados ao debate evolu??o versus design inteligente, e a diacr?nica, que considerou o desenvolvimento de aspectos espec?ficos dos pensamentos desses grupos ao longo do tempo. Nossos resultados permitem caracterizar os grupos envolvidos no debate evolu??o versus design inteligente como portadores de estilos de pensamento pr?prios, constituindo distintos coletivos de pensamento. Apesar de o estilo de pensamento da evolu??o biol?gica (EP-EVO) e do estilo de pensamento do design inteligente (EP-DI) possu?rem certa sobreposi??o em seus objetos de estudo, adotam m?todos, explica??es, julgamentos e linguagem diferenciados para abord?-los. De forma semelhante, o coletivo de pensamento da evolu??o biol?gica (CP-EVO) e o coletivo de pensamento do design inteligente (CP-DI) apresentam diferen?as na configura??o de seus respectivos c?rculos esot?ricos e na forma como disseminam o conhecimento que produzem. O tr?fego intercoletivo de ideias evidencia ser assim?trico, ocorrendo, predominantemente, no sentido do CP-EVO ao CP-DI, assim como os desvios de significado. Nossos resultados apontam ainda, que uma an?lise fleckiana pode contribuir para a melhor caracteriza??o dos coletivos e estilos envolvidos no debate, subsidiando a discuss?o sobre a tem?tica em sala de aula quando esta se fizer necess?ria. Al?m disso, ela contribui para a elabora??o de pr?ticas e estrat?gias mais adequadas ao ensino da evolu??o biol?gica, sejam aquelas que evidenciam como esses estilos e coletivos se constitu?ram social e historicamente, sejam aquelas centradas na compreens?o da evolu??o e nos desvios de significado. / In this study, we analyzed the debate Evolution versus Inteligente Design by the point of view of Ludwik Fleck?s (1896-1961) epistemology, especially as regards the categories thought style and thought collective, esoteric and exoteric circles, intercollective communication and deviations of meaning. The analysis from this framework aims to contribute to the teaching of biological evolution - marked by tensions, disputes and conflicting points of view, during science and biology classes - considering the "understanding" as the ultimate goal of the teaching of evolution. Mainly, data collection involved the analysis of documents. The methodology of Discursive Textual Analysis (DTA) based the analysis from two perspectives: the synchronic one, which was performed by means of documents produced by individuals and/or groups linked to the evolution versus intelligent design debate, and the diachronic one, which considered the development of specific aspects of thinking of these groups over time. Our results characterize the groups involved in the evolution versus intelligent design debate as having own thought styles, constituting distinct thought collectives. Although the thought style of biological evolution (EVO-TS) and intelligent design thought style (ID-TS) have some overlap in their subjects, adopt methods, explanations, different judgments and language to address them. Similarly, the thought collective about biological evolution (EVO-TC) and the thought collective about intelligent design (ID-TC) differ in the configuration of their esoteric circles and the way they spread the knowledge they produce. The intercollective communication is asymmetrical, occurring predominantly in the direction from EVO-TC to ID-TC, as well as the deviations from meaning. Our results also indicate that a fleckian analysis can contribute to a better characterization of the collectives and styles involved in the debate, supporting the discussion on the subject in the classroom when it is needed. In addition, it contributes to the development of practices and most appropriate strategies to biological evolution education, both those that show how these styles and collectives were formed socially and historically, and those focused on understanding the evolution and deviations of meaning.