Term for the suppresive effect / tactic of over-requiring proof?

Much like the pestering child asking "Why?" over and over, one can demand proof (or examples) of an argument as a means to slow it down, trivialize it, or out-right block it.

I'm looking for any term to describe this sort of effect / tactic. To give an example:

"The [baby-step technique] is a way of suppressing forward movement of an idea by requiring it to put excessive effort into every step."

As another example:

There is a scene in Futurama where an ape argues with a scientist that evolution isn't real by constantly asking "What came before that stage of evolution," until eventually reaching a missing link at which point this is taken as proof that the argument of evolution is lacking sufficient evidence.

"If you can't prove this thing ad-nauseam, it is false."

P.S. I strongly believe in having proof for things, this is not about being anti-scientific, but more about overdoing it to undermine the very pursuit.

A chilling effect is a possibility. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

Used as a legal term, referring to rules or legislation that discourages the exercise of rights, but also used more generally.

Maybe something like reductio ad absurdum, proving/arguing that a proposition, such as evolution, leads to an absurd conclusion.