Does God reveal Himself behind secondary causes?

Does the idea of "secondary causes" imply that God reveals Himself by His creation, or that He does not at all? *Wikipedia* provides this definition of "secondary causation " where there seems to be a very strong autonomy of world realities relative to God: > Secondary causation[3] is the philosophical proposition that all material and corporeal objects, having been created by God with their own intrinsic potentialities, are subsequently empowered to evolve independently in accordance with natural law. The definition provided here seems to still insist that there is a link between world's realities (humans, nature, etc.), although they are separate: > The theologians speaking of those forces truly operating in the world as "secondary causes". God is the first cause, but the forces of nature and free actions of personal beings whom God has created are second causes; and it is extremely important, if we would be true to the bible, that the existence of secondary causes should not be denied. > >Only, it is important to observe that the two causes are not on the same plane. They are not coordinate, but one is completely subordinate to another. In every event in the natural world God has completely accomplished what he willed to accomplish. He is not limited in any way by the forces of nature or by the free actions of his creatures. They act truly; but they truly act only as he has determined they shall act. The correct way, therefore, expressing the relation between secondary causes and God, the great First Cause, is to say that God makes use of second causes to accomplish what is accordance with his eternal purpose. > >Second causes are not independent forces whose cooperation He needs, but they are means that He employs exactly as He will. This picture illustrates the idea of "secondary causation": So **what is the idea behind "secondary causation"**? Is it that we can interpret natural things as revealing something about God (e.g. God's will, God's perfection, God's goodness), or is it that by studying nature, we should not think about God's presence behind those natural things? Or is it the idea that it allows to be agnostic on that matter, allowing us to see God's presence if we will, nor not if we prefer not to. **Response to comments**: From discussion with users in the comments, I get the impression that the “secondary causation” principle can itself be object of various interpretations.