If you read alot of pokedex entries you find that pokemon do infact each one another, Kabutops' pokedex entry states: A slim and fast swimmer. It slices its prey with its sharp sickles and drinks the body fluids, now if we look at this would you rather a child learn such facts from real life learning? or from a child friendly game designed in my opinion to teach people the importance of treating the animals within the world with respect and dignity and that those animals have there own cycles of lives.
Another pokedex entry this time from Glalie: Glalie has the ability to freely control ice. For example, it can instantly freeze its foe solid. After immobilizing its foe in ice, this Pokémon enjoys eating it in leisurely fashion, if a child read this it would think it's a little weird but it would not see the immediate fear because I came from a game, where as if the child were to see a real life animal slowly eating something else it would not be as interested and would initially be frightened.
Excuse my poor English here. What I meant to say is, yes of course it's important for them to learn, but, it won't matter all that much for them on a video game, because, like said before, will children properly care for the real-world terminology in pokemon games anyway? Will children necessarily care, or rather -- understand, the biology that older kids understand? I'm just saying, not sure even little kids care about that stuff when playing a pokemon game. It's like how in Mario games, getting all of the stars/beating all of the levels gets more emphasis than beating Bowser, because Bowser's plot just doesn't have much bearing on the actual main points of the game.
Well yeah, there's nothing really specific on how people you'd define something as "creative". Like, how is a Grimer any less creative than trubbish? That argument has been going on for a while now. It'll be tough speculating about new pokemon, but hey, we have hopes, right?