"The Planets" is not a science book. It is, much like Sobel's other works, a combination of history and artistic license. Heck, the section on Mars was narrated in the first person by ALH84001; nonetheless I seriously doubt she advocates in that chapter that meteorites can talk. Does Sobel believe in astrology? I doubt it; she comes across as something of an agnostic on the subject in the interviews I've read. And like Nigel said, astrology is part of the history of astronomy, and is one of the principal means by which people come to know the planets in their everyday lives, so its only natural that a book intended to introduce the planets to the layman would use astrology as a means to that end.

I must say I've always been a bit puzzled by the hatred people on this forum have for astrology. It may be bunk, but then so are rabbit's feet, lucky pennies or saying "Break a leg" before a performance. It is not science, but unlike creationism or somesuch it is not opposed to science. I've done some divination in my time; it's basically just intuitive connecting of mythic archetypes. It doesn't really matter what the cards or the stars say in the end; what matters is how you draw them together in the presence of the questioner. The questioner eventually draws his or her own conclusions based on what he or she is shown.

__________________
There is a growing tendancy to think of Man as a rational, thinking being, which is absurd.- Marvin the Martian.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.