If you like debates, definitely.
If not, maybe still if you think you can do something productive with the time in front of the audience you’ll have. Putting yourself, as both a supporter of current science and a man of faith, in front of an audience convinced that those two things are logically incompatible, might be helpful to some of them.
If you think your time there would do more to promote creationism than promote good science, or you don’t have time, or you just aren’t interested enough, then don’t. No one with an opinion that matters will think less of you for not ‘debating’ a creationist.
@Joe_Felsenstein makes an excellent point to the importance of framing: Establish the narrowest range of common ancestry he rejects, then make the debate about that range exclusively. So if he rejects, as I assume he does, the common ancestry of all mammals, then any discussion of the common ancestry of all life is pointless. Narrowing it even further to common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees would obviously be ideal.
This is actually one of my biggest complaints about YECs in general, they reject things that are easily demonstrated, but instead of listening to that demonstration insist on running to the hard stuff. Debating the plausibility of abiogenesis is fair enough in conversation with someone like Sy Garte, but not someone who thinks the earth is <10ka.
Finally, I may have been the one who suggested your name for this… Sorry about that.