With Shadow Creek you know what you are getting - but with WS it looks like you are sold a bill of goods that is missing a vital element?
Like I've asked before, why is it that you can't have an "American" style of play that simply looks different? Whoever claimed it is "supposed" to play like a links? Are people so upset by the fact that it was once an Air Base (and not "born" this way) that it makes them feel like the course is devoid of Architectural merit? Sure, I love a great "minimalist" hole, but I don't think that style can claim exclusive domain over "great" or "memorable" architecture.
Dye used elevation and strategic mounds to take away the "comfort zone" of seeing all of your landing area. When you can get touring pros to feel uncomfortable with visual intimidation, there is some evidence of merit (which can't be easily dismissed as goofy OTT gimmicks).
The 12th is a great little Par 3 with a superbly designed green. When you can challenge touring pros with wedges and 9 irons in their hands, that deserves some respect.
All over the course, there is the strategic use of angled landing areas, the use of rolling fairways to provide different ways of attacking the hole, risk/reward trade-offs (think VJ on #10 in 2004 playoff), and diabolically tricky greens which accentuate the short game. Do these things not reflect architectural merit? Some of the dismissals here (and on similar threads) seem to smack of "it's artificial, so it's bad," despite evidence to the contrary.
And why are some people so dismissive with some of their comments to the effect of "if it weren't for the water views...."? Aesthetics are a huge part of the golfing experience. While I recognize that it's a function of individual taste, Whistling Straits is visually stunning to me, and it's not just the water views. The flowing of the fairways and detail mentioned by JC (I mean A.W.) all add to the experience.
I'll stop now because I'm rambling a bit and I need to get to bed for my 2+ hour drive tomorrow AM.