Barely relevant, since in order for astrology to be true, much of what we believe we know about physics in general would have to be revised anyway. But OK, let's assume that the concerns of astrology and astrophysics are orthogonal: that would count as a point in astrology's favor, as it would not have to overcome the mass of evidence supporting astrophysics as a prerequisite for building the case for its own validity.
Accordingly, when I compare creationism/ID to astrology, I am actually being generous.
ID or creation science do seek to address the same questions evolutionary biology tries to address.
There's dispute within the ID community about that, too. Every time you see somebody on one of these threads saying, "yes, but you can't tell me where life came from in the first place!", or "but where did the first cell come from?", or "evolution can't explain abiogenesis", or "you get your own dirt", they are making the case that the territories covered by evolution and creationism/ID are not congruent.