You missed my point.
My point in the comparison with the Anti-Astrology and Anti-Evolution examples was that in both cases the people making the attacks already have a closed mind and do not even take a cursory look at the subject which would show that their attacks only showed their utter willful ignorance of the subject in 'debunking' it. If you're going to debunk something at least take a minute to understand what you're debunking. In not taking a look at the subject and parroting 'experts' who have spread erroneous information (and one known for about 2000 years) they are acting very much like followers of a 'superstitious faith' themselves.
"The stars" can't fit anything. There's no real such thing as "the stars." Hell, we can't even see most of the objects in the universe at this moment with our naked eye. That light hasn't reached us yet, and won't in our lifetime.
Ok those points of light in the sky as they appear currently in the night sky from the perspective of earth.
Evolution is also free of bias, in that it can work anywhere, being a theory that is general enough to apply to all known and imagined forms of life anywhere, from our present observations. Astrology has a strong terrestrial basis, being based on what is observable in the Earth sky, which is completely dependent on, well, Earth. And then you get back into the problem of which stars are really stars, what do you do about stars we can't see but can detect from other energies, what do you do about the fact that constellations are arbitrary, what do you do about the fact that many stars we "see" are long dead, etc. etc. etc.
Yes Astrology has a Earth bias and isn't a science. The constellations are arbitrary and used to mark off segments of the sky planets are more of the key players in the charts and at least from the perspective of Hermetic astrology they signal times of cyclic influence of different factors that play upon the psyche.