(1) No, we didn't evolve from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys, about 7 million years ago, Pierolapithecus; it's probably the earliest known common link between all of the "great apes" (the Family Hominidae, home to such species as bonobos, humans and gorillas).
I'e happy to talk about evolution. Do you believe that we evolved from monkeys? Or divine intervention? Or were we, as I believe, genetically mutated on purpose by a higher power to make us a dominant species? You see, if we evolved from monkeys, then the theory has some holes. Let me explain. Monkeys have fur, but why don't we? If we evolved from monkeys, then how come we must wear fur to be warm? Wouldn't we have kept fur, since it is needed. Of course, I look at my relatives and say, "Oh, humans still have fur," but in all seriousness, why? Perhaps we were given no fur in order to foster thought. A person who is cold would improvise to get warm. No other creature does that. I would say that this was set up, because there is no logical explanation as to why we would be furless otherwise.
(2) Evolution is about adaptation, above everything else; we have in nature what are called "selection pressures" which cause natural events (such as weather, other animals, ecosystems, etc.) to "weed out" those animals which do not properly adapt to the selection pressures; as such, there is not always a straight line in which animals "evolve;" sometimes animals will evolve a feature that is useful in a certain ecosystem, and then (either through a change in climate, or an emigration to a different ecosystem, or a natural event resulting in the genetic isolation of two or more otherwise identical populations) evolve that principle away at a later date. An example can be found in certain cave-dwelling salamanders; they have residual eyes that don't actually work (in some species they work only very weakly, only registering the faintest bit of light, and are not relied upon in any case as the salamander's primary detective sense). This is because they are descended from amphibians that evolved eyes over time, but then at some point their ancestors began to live in and around caves, and as the population drifted into the caves, their eyes became less and less useful, so eyesight stopped being a relevant selection pressure --- whereas, in daylight, a creature with poor eyesight is less likely to survive because predators have good eyesight (and can thus hunt more efficiently than the salamander can avoid being hunted), in a cave, having poor eyesight is almost a zero factor, all other things being equal. So a creature can survive in spite of having poor or even no eyesight, and this will not affect its future survivability in the least, so long as it remains part of a cave-dwelling population.
So the reason we have less hair than ancestors (we still have hair, just not as much --- if nobody ever shaved, you'd see) is because selection pressures changed at a certain point in our biological history, and full body hair became less necessary. It's been speculated, for example, that once early hominids began using tools and finding/creating shelter, body hair became less of a primary factor for trapping heat, and so hair prominence became less of a determining factor for survival (so in fact the opposite of what you proposed --- it's possible that the tools came first, the hair loss came after).
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."