I haven't studied astrology enough to know how it makes connections between the position of stars, behavior, and future events. At least it has a wealth of detailed records based upon direct observation of current phenomena in its day, and to this day makes use of direct observation of the heavenly bodies. That is more than I can say for evolutionism. The lack of any human records detailing a 4.5 billion year old earth is just one more case of "absent" evidence.
Astrologers argue that associations between the signs and planets and certain characteristics were empirically made: that over the centuries it became clear that man was more amorous when Venus was prominent, more prone to violence when Mars was active; that when certain planets were in Gemini at the time of the birth of a baby, it would grow up to be talkative, quick-moving and hasty. And certainly there is much evidence to suggest that the elaboration of the techniques of astrology came about not through psychic guesswork, or even the symbolic unconscious, but (as in science) through observation and careful record.
It seems that a good portion of astrology is based upon direct observation, even though its inferences and conclusions may be off base. That's more than can be said for those who today believe in a 4.5 billion year old earth, for they have neither observation itself nor records of observations dating that far back. Astronomy still makes use of ancient astrological records, thus placing it among the sciences that have greater certitude.