While it's true that the shell is an older style of interacting with a computer than the GUI, the graphical user interface is actually the more primitive interface. The GUI is easy to learn and widely used, but the shell is vastly more sophisticated. Using a GUI is somewhat like communicating in American Indian sign language. If your message is a simple one, like "We come in peace," you can communicate it by using a few gestures. However, if you attempted to give Lincoln's Gettysburg addressa notably short public discourseyou'd find your task quite formidable.[1]
scripts that let you store a series of commands for later execution, saving you the future tedium of typing or pointing and clicking to recall them.
The contrary philosophy is seen in operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, which employ elaborate, monolithic programs that provide menus, submenus, and dialog boxes. Such programs have no way to cooperate with one another to accomplish complex operations that weren't anticipated when the programs were designed. They're easy to use so long as you remain on the beaten path, but once you step off the trail, you find yourself in a confusing wilderness.
Of course, not everyone shares this perspective. The Usenet newsgroups, for example, are filled with postings debating the relative merits of GUIs. Some see the Unix shell as an arcane and intimidating monstrosity. But, even if they're correct, it's inarguable that when you learn to use the shell, you begin to see Unix as it was intended (whether that's for better or for worse).
When you are performing common, routine operations, a GUI that minimizes typing can be a relief, but when faced with a complex, unstructured problem that requires a creative solution, the shell is more often the tool of choice. Creating solutions in the form of shell scripts allows solutions to be stored for subsequent reuse. Perhaps even more important, shell scripts can be studied to quickly bone up on forgotten details, expediting the solution of related problems.