Over 150 years of research in the areas of geology, biology, and genetics that provide independent lines of evidence that point us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution best explains the fact that life in the past was much different than life today and that the variation of life on this planet has changed gradually over time.
Evolution explains the evidence we have at hand in a way that is comprehensive, empirical, and in a way that makes sense. It ties together lines of evidence that simply cannot be explained in any other way without being contradictory to other conclusions based on the same explanation.
A few specifics that come to mind are the existence of ERV insertions in the genomes of the liniages of primates, the twin nested hierarchy that is developed via the fossil record and genetic studies, and the numerous genetic relationships that can be found that point to common ansestry and that don't make sense when viewed by special creation.
It's hard to pin down a few specifics in a single post becaus there are volumes of evidence that fit together and are explained by the theory of evolution.
I know you were not looking for talk origins links, but this one provides the most concise summary of the evidence the theory of evolution explains.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
The scientific consensus for evolution is well established, well researched, well referenced, and empirically supported.
Competing ideas such as young earth creationism have been falsified for over 100 years by independent lines of evidence.
There is no serious contention within the scientific communitity that evolution happened. There are still details to be worked out but virtualy nobdoy who seriously and objectively evaluates the evidence in the field suggest that evolution did not happen. The only objection comes from those who are religiously motivated by their adherence to a very literal interpretation of genesis or some other religious text. They simply claim that by definition they are correct and that any evidence to the contrary is by definition wrong. They don't approach the subject objectively as can be seen by the statements of faith and tenants from groups like AIG or ICR who try to say they are scientific but their actions show that they are not interested in objective scientific inquiry.
