Would you guys contest that "light is transmitted by fluctuations in the ether" is a scientific theory? It was believed by many scientists, and for a long time. The answer to the question posed in the survey depends not just on the definition of "astrology," but also on the definition of "scientific."
One of the things that I keep parroting to the creationist crowd is that a scientific theory must explain past events, and predict future events in a way that is testable. Nothing in here says that it has to be true. In fact, many theories that we now use are expressly not true at certain limits. Nope - explanation of past events, and prediction of future events in a testable manner. Those are the qualifications.
So let's apply this to astrology. Does it explain past events? Well, it certainly tries to. Does it predict future events? Check. Does it predict future events in a manner that is testable and falsifiable? I think that a controlled experiment would certainly do so. The controlled experiment would fail, and that would prove the theory of astrology false, but that doesn't make it "not a scientific theory."
Given that logic, I'd have to answer "sort of scientific" to this question. But if I were asked "do you believe that the position of stars and planets govern our day to day lives," that would get a resounding "no."