English grammer correction:
“String theory” CANNOT create any “universes”.
As a theory it can postulate things, it canot “create” them.
Beyond that, string theory is a matematical consruct used to keep employed a bunch of scientists that figured out a good but useless theory to play with every day, and too often at taxpayers expense.
Meanwhile, there is zero empirical evidence for what string theorists imagine their math postulates.
Some of the math developed for String Theory has found other uses, like developing better models of surface boundaries in solids. Very useful for the science of materials, it’s wrong to say its a waste. In it’s original use it very well could be a waste, but it’s a “tool” and creative people will find other uses for the “tool”.
Which should disqualify it as a confirmed "theory" and reduce it back to just another hypothesis.
Indeed, if you think about it, what part of such hypotheses can even theoretically be falsified?
If the answer is "none", then it's not even a hypothesis but should be thought of as mere scientific brain-storming.
Don't get me wrong -- brainstorming potential explanations is just as important as any other scientific procedure.
But let's not get carried away by routinely equating brainstorming to other highly confirmed scientific theories.