Note that I did not offer the contrast between astronomy and astrology, and I assume that the original poster meant to contrast them (when using the phrase "nature of the universe") in the context of where they do intersect.
Astrology attempts to use the position of celestial bodies to understand and predict future events. That is what it has to do with explaining something.
Now you may believe that it does a poor job of doing that, but I am afraid that would be an entirely different point or question.
--ravi
My analogy fails you because you apparently believe astrology attempts to explain anything. It does nothing of the kind. It is merely an amusement, like reading tea leaves. Using tea leaves to foretell the future of a sporting game or to reveal something about the nature of botany itself makes no difference. Using astronomy to foretell future events or reveal something about the nature of the universe also makes no difference. Neither has any explanatory ability in any field. They are parlor games, for entertainment purposes only. You write "reading tea leaves has nothing to do with it" meaning botany, as if reading tea leaves explained something else.
You do point out that Jerry, not you, was the source of the original comparison claiming astrology offered any explanatory ability.
John Thornton