Evil?  I don't think so.  It's a card game based on a cartoon--or the cartoon is based on the card game, not sure which, out of Japan.  

It's silly, but it is a game with rules and people who can figure out the strategy peculiar to the game can be pretty good players.

But it is costly and, to keep the money flowing, there are always new sets, new characters, etc., so that people will continue to buy them.

Yu-Gi-Oh, on the other hand, with it's spells and other mysticism, I think, might be more appropriately characterized as evil than Pokemon.

If you consider that they're characters whose lives do not exist outside the card/book and nothing more, it's fine.

When deciding whether or not something is good or not for children (and for yourself for that matter), it is always good to weigh the good and the bad to see which one overrides the other, so to speak. Let's start with the good.

i) It's entertainment. The Pokemon games were pure entertainment, and the storyline is half-decent. Battling with make-believe animals is pretty cool, and at least they don't kill each other.

ii) Numbers involved. There are constant simple math equations involved in playing Pokemon (especially the cards). So, it could potentially help with math.

iii) (sort of similar to point i) It creates a bond between the players.

Now, the bad...

i) The characters "evolve" into different "lifeforms" based upon a set structure. That is, by definition, evolution, and it promotes this lie.

ii) There is a certain "type" of Pokemon called the "Psychic" type. This in and of itself is enough evidence to prove that there are New Age influences in the Pokemon games. Just look at this Pokemon's head: (search Abracadabra on google)

It is clearly a pentagram.

The Psychic type can also manipulate other Pokemon and transport themselves using their powers. It is unhealthy to expose children to this kind of stuff.

iii) It creates a sort of desensitization to violence between animals. Not saying I am a "tree hugger" but God did not create the animals for mankind to utilize them in such a manner, and although they are fake, some children cannot distinguish between fiction and reality.

Point iii is not necessarily enough for one to avoid the Pokemon games altogether, but points i and ii definitely are.

Now, if there were to be a game similar to Pokemon that came out and had the same concept yet subtracted the magical element along with the evolution aspect, I would not necessarily see too much of an issue with it (if made out to be that there is a clear good and evil and that the opposing creatures were predatory and your creatures were there in defense of yourself; not to pit them to the death for money), other than the violence between animals. Alas, in the present state of the world, this sort of thing is nearly impossible.

Do the cons outweigh the pros? Certainly.

Can the cons be avoided? The first con is unavoidable (unless you forcibly stop your Pokemon from evolving, yet this is a core concept in the series). The second con is to an extent, but the fact that there is any New Age content in a game that is not changeable by you (as opposed to putting different lyrics over a song structure) is a troubling aspect.

What does this mean?

Avoid Pokemon and seek healthier alternatives.

Except that Pokemon wasn't developed in America. It is a Japanese game/cartoon, which was brought over to America.

The original is Japanese. The term used for pokemon "progressing" into the next form is:

進化 which is read shinka.

The Japanese word shinka meaning "Evolution; Progress" is composed of the kanji (shin) meaning "advance; progress; proceed" and the kanji (ka) meaning "change; influence; take the form of".

The Japanese language is much like German; you have root words with general meanings and then string-em-together! Of course there are some set "combinations", but it's very easy to make up new words, which you can basically guess if you can read the Kanji. Martial arts makes use of this: Hidden-hand-surprise-punch and so forth.

Anyhow, shinka only means "evolution" in a very broad sense. It isn't Darwin's godless Evolution with a capital E, with any connotation of "natural selection".

It is used exactly like a child becomes a teenager, then he becomes an adult. Every Pokemon also has 3 forms or stages. But they're always the same stages. They never develop into a new, never-before-seen species due to the needs of their environment.

A Caterpie always becomes a Metapod, which then becomes a Butterfree. (Yes, I had to look it up! Those are the English names. Seriously, I might remember a few of the Japanese names, but I studiously avoided the English version of Pokemon anything)

In other words, they're more like the stages of pupa/larva/adult, only expanded to the entire animal kingdom (mammals, reptiles, etc.)

i) The characters "evolve" into different "lifeforms" based upon a set structure. That is, by definition, evolution, and it promotes this lie.

I used to watch the cartoon, and I always thought its use of the term "evolve" was mistaken. It's metamorphosis, not evolution. Caterpie does not evolve into Butterfree. It metamorphoses, like caterpillars into butterflies. So it's only the use of the word "evolve" that is wrong.

It's harmless fun as far as I can tell.  It may not be the most intellectually stimulating exercise, but that doesn't make it evil.

Also, it is laughable that anyone would claim pokemon's use of the word "evolution" makes it border of evil.  The "evolution" undergone by these fictional characters is more far akin to the metamorphosis insect undergo (think larva, pupa, and imago) than to evolution in the Darwinian sense.

There may be reasons parent's don't want their kids to get into pokemon, but legitimate concerns about the morality of it is not one of them.

As a parent, my main concern with Pokemon is that it would probably lead to other forms of japanese anime and manga, which may promote anti -Catholic agendas.

You're being a little ridiculous here.  First, you're making an unwarranted assumption that engaging in a morally-neutral activity will lead to others simply because of its nation of origin.  Secondly, you are assuming other activities from that nation are automatically anti-Catholic.  Taken to its logical conclusion, you would have to forbid you're children from engaging in any morally-neutral activity.

Ought we prevent children from reading Tolkien, as it may lead them to other English literature that is Protestant and anti-Catholic?  Do we prevent children from eating Chinese food as it may lead them into Maoism?  Do we prevent children form playing golf as it may lead them to Scottish Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ?