I can offer a better explanation for why people dislike Creed.  In the first
place, they are unoriginal.  Most bands are, to a certain degree, amalgams
of previous groups.  After all, everyone has their influences.  Creed,
however, has used its influences to generate the most generic rock music
possible.  It's not surprising that Metallica fans would dislike Creed,
because Metallica has always been innovative and musical.  Additionally,
their lyrics explore dimensions of thought that THEY AND THEY ALONE made
palatable for mass consumption.  Creed's lyrics, by contrast, are filled
with rock n' roll cliches that are bad renderings of everyone from Led
Zeppelin to Black Sabbath.  Their thematic material is trite and
heavy-handed.  How many times can I be banged over the head with the same
stupid allusions and canned imagery?  It lacks any literary or creative
merit.   Personally, I couldn't care less if they were Christian-,
Buddhist-, Hindu- or Islam-rockers.  But the obviously biblical references
apppear forced and unnatural.  Their supposedly deep explorations of human
nature and metaphysics are pseudo-philosophical at best, completely naive at
worst.  Culling the power of biblical teaching for their inspiration is a
great idea if, that is, they intend to present it in a modernized, unique
way.  They do not, and it is clear that they have ignored the works of
biblical scholars and commentators since St. Augustine.  If they had been
paying attention, then they would know that everything they write has been
written before.

As for the actual music, very few bands have ever been in Creed's position.
Their goal as a musical group is to create hook-music so that it can be
easily played on radio, ie. so that they can be popular and make money.
That in itself is not a terrible thing.  Pop music has always thrived on the
repetitive, mesmerizing qualities of catchy choruses and bridges.  But in
the case of Creed, a band which lacks an appreciation for music theory or
classic arrangement, aiming for the hook has sorely limited their song
structures.  Their music is arranged in the most elementary ways, such that
the development of the song is both predictable and brutally unmusical.  In
order to keep their listeners addicted to their radio-friendly tunes, they
make use of as few time changes as possible, usually only two per song.  The
persistent tempos, while great for radio, do not make for good, interesting
music.  It is simply boring and makes no attempt to bring unique aural
stimulation to the listener.

For a great example of a band that 1) employs time changes specifically to
enhance the song's quality 2) has a wonderful understading of pop and 3)
writes lyrics that leave room for hundreds of interesting interpretations,
check out Wilco.  They are probably the most important band on the
Indie-rock scene right now, and for good reason.  They are changing
everything...and folks like Tom Petty and Bob Dylan have bowed their heads
in admiration of the lead singer's (Jeff Tweedy) unending talent.  Wilco
produces pop music and they do so with a genuine historical perspective and
they hope to build on their predecessors' efforts, rather than simplify
whatever was good in their music so that mass audiences can be hooked by it.

Any questions?  Feel free to write and we can discuss.