I second that suggestion.
A lot of “response to creationists” type work is not that wonderful, and framing the thing as a contest between evolutionary theory and creationism tends to get it wrong in any event. Creationism isn’t even involved, in any way, in the scientific view of things; it’s not at the table, it’s not part of the discussion. So the best thing is to understand evolutionary theory on its own terms, at which point, if you’ve done your homework correctly, the creationist objections will no longer make much sense. Understand the consensus, and THEN try to understand the critique; don’t start with the critique.
An example of how the creation/evolution “controversy” approach tends to mess people up is in the way that, since Lenski’s E. coli work has been cited so often in support of certain aspects of evolutionary theory, creationists tend to see it as “the experiment designed to prove that evolution is real.” It’s not. And seeing it that way invites the silliest criticisms of it.
Apart from the general recommendation of textbooks (Vertebrate Life is a favorite of mine), one other recommendation: the very, very best preparation in my opinion is a good overview of the diversity of life – not just big animals but all animals, down to the tiniest invertebrates; not just those, either, but all living things: prokaryotes, unicellular eukaryotes, fungus, plants, the whole shebang. The schools used to sometimes teach biology as a kind of catalog-like march through the phyla, and while I do understand why this approach has fallen from favor, it has something to recommend it: it is only when one takes in living diversity in all its scope that one can begin to understand why biologists have come to the views they now hold about the descent of living things. When you’re just looking at a lamprey and a squirrel, or a human and an orange tree, common descent may seem absurd. View the whole spectrum that unites those things under the grand banner of life, and the picture is very different. This is not a case “against” creationism: it is, instead, a matter of attempting to understand living things themselves.